Yeah kindergarden is far too young. I mean, kids don't even start kissing each other until the fourth grade. I sort of liked the system at my school, though I wish changes in subject matter occurred, but anyway yhey did it like this: They skim the surface of it in fifth grade, just so the kids understand what it is, why its done. In seventh grade they start talking about premature sex, and the risks, and finally get as thorough as they have time for in seventh grade.

Channler, unfortunately I got this survey from an article two months ago, but search google for Sexual Education and they'll show some articles highlighting the controversy.

Ahh... to bad..

Well.. lets see.. I was a little wild.. as a kid? I was kissing girls behind the school bus's in kindergarden...

but that was never serious, it was jsut because. there was no physical attraction.

Channler is such a pimp.

Anyway - about sex-ed.

I don't think it is necessary, except maybe a small talk about STDs and how to prevent them. Everything else will be learned in time. I knew everything they had to say before I ever took the class.

I think they should skim the surface at sixth, maybe fifth grade and then teach the main points in seventh, eighth and maybe future grades. That's how I was taught and I turned out all right.

The most abstinence prone thing I ever saw was on South Park when they started their sex-ed episode and everyone asked Chef when it was appropriate to start having sex.

"Seventeen."

"But after they're truly in love and have trust in each other"

"No, just seventeen"

"But only if both them and their partner are really ready"

"Nope, just seventeen"

Sorry to change the subject but...I just heard today that the US president...is telling Iran to stop manufacturing nuclear weapons. Bush is two words...power hungry.

It's not good enough for him to rule the United States, he has to try and rule the rest of the world as well...where will the line be drawn?

Honestly, I have no problem with anyone stopping the production of nuclear weapons - the US included.

they scare the hell out of me.

I wish every country in the world would agree to abandoning the research and production of nuclear weapons. Anything with that kind of destructive power should be banned IMO.

Yeah some people are just too arrogant to understand that a destructive force is a destructive force no matter who owns it.

But you all know how foolish it would be to disabanded them nuke stocks now...

As I see it, nukes would only be trouble in the hands of

A: A terrorist organization, like Al Quada (SP)

B: Korea, who has or doesn't have nukes

C: Iran is sketchy, I trust almost any other nation (developed) with them but Iran

I don't think we would us nukes even if they were used on us (the US), even though both the vast majority of republicans would agree, and a large number of dems would agree.

Besides the notion of warfare has changed from 3rd Gen to 4th Gen..

Above I've ruled out everything I don't agree with.

I think whoever even made thos bombs should have to eat them. YES! YES! *plankton's voice* MWAHAHAH! Now Spongebob, that crabby paddy is mine!

I think as long as one nation has them, it does not have that right to restrict others from obtaining them. There are other nations I don't trust the bomb with.

1. Israel
2. Stargelman Emperor of Waiting4Oblivion (I dare not think what would happen)
3. England
4. France
5. Me (That might be worse that Stargelman owning them)

Hey guys, guess what, Iran is developing nuclear weapons, but they won't be able to create one for at least ten years. So why then, does the Bush administration represent this kernal of evidence as being so urgent as to justify bombing them in the coming year? Well, let me explain.

See, currently The United States has total power to what ever the Hell they want in the Middle East. They want to bomb an extremely poor country, kidnap their dictator and put a democratic flag at their capital with its rigged elections to turn that country into a terrorist hotspot, then they can, no questions asked, at least from Middle Eastern countries. Why? Becuase the only country with the power to say anything is Israel, and Israel wouldn't say a damned thing because of all the money and benefits the US gives them, and the similarity in their religious Right-wing ideals.

Despite the fact that Iran has a Secular government with even less liberties than Iraq had, they would still represent opposition against this bulldozer force in the Middle-East. If Iran could develop just one nuclear bomb, then they would jump start a cold-war between Israel and Iran. The United States wants to stop that from happening because even though it would bring peace, as Israel would be less likely to bully the smaller states in the Middle East, this peace would not be in favor of the right-wing agenda. I don't agree with Iran's government. They are Secular and right-wing, even more right-wing than Saddam Hussein. However, I am very much in favor of a deadlock between Israel and Iran, that way situations like Iraq could not repeat themselves in countries like Syria and Jordan, as the Bush administration obviously feels in favor of doing, despite the major fiasco that every single anti-war person saw coming, in his mind Iraq was still a success.

In a great deal of people still find Iraq a success, just not the people you like...

The majority of the country is displeased with the way Bush is handling the situation. And America is not the entire world, and 95% of the entire world is definitely displeased with the way Bush is handling Iraq. That's my point, most people agree that no single country with one single, extreme point of view should get total power over a region, and yet thanks to diplomatic networks with Israel, and business connections with Saudis, the US has usurped control over the Middle East. If Iran, a country unfriendly to the US, developed a nuclear bomb, then this tyrannical power in the Middle East would cease.

I'd like to know where you find your information cause last time I saw the opinion polls (and this was from CNN) they were at 40 for 60 agaisnt

Riiiiiiiight. Let's see, last I cheked was around May, and it was around 55% disliked the way he was handling Iraq, 45% were satisfied with the way he was handling Iraq

Yep, Doomed is right - a majority of Americans don't like the war or how Bush is handling it. Including me.

Back on the Iran with nuclear weapons topic : while Doomed is right in that the "tyrannical power in the Middle East" would end should Iran make a nuke, it may also lead to a nuclear war just fighting over that control. Quite honestly, I would rather have the US and Israel in total domination of the Middle East than have a nuclear war. To me, it's the lesser of two evils.

No one wants a nuclear war. The goal of Iran in developing nuclear capabilities is not to evoke nuclear war. That's not what they want. They can be as right-wing and as secular as they want, they still wouldn't have any plans to ever use a nuclear weapon. They, however, are not diplomatically tight with the US right now. The US has threatened to begin bombing them. As a leader, I'd be pretty frightened in hearing a country planned to blow me up. Even the ability to make the US think I had nuclear capabilities would be enough. You see, the chances of the US dismantling a single nuclear bomb are so slim... there's no chance of bringing balance to the Middle-East by lowering the grade of weapons, so it's up to the countries that aren't on the good side of the Super-powers to stand up for themselves. They really have no choice in this matter.

I look at it like that scene from negotiator where Samuel L Jackson pretended to shoot the assault guy so the cops outside would stop trying to break in.

About the majority on Americans not liking it . . .

1. They probably don't poll children, and being a minor doesn't take away your American citizenship

2. They poll a small number of adults and use the figures to represent the nation.

When they poll every single person in the United States of America, including me, I'll believe them.

Bush was elected by the majority of voters, not everyone voted. However, seeing as that I can't really do anything about that because I can't vote, I'll just say this.

The majority of voters picked him, so hes our president. If they hated his ideas then why elect him. The way I view it . .

Elected = Hey, too bad for those of you who didn't want him to be president.

This nuclear thing . . .

I believe no nation holds the rights to have stored nuclear weapons, or build them in the future.



Israel? What's Israel? Oh yes, one of the "nations" that was formed when the British broke up the area known as Palestine. Making sure that there was not a single nation that could stand up to them in that region, in order to retain dominance.

We're not giving Israel money as a gift, we're giving it so they don't use the dangerous weapons they have. In other words, it's a bribe. That's whats stopping a nuclear war, I don't view Israel as a responsible state.

Instead of protesting war, people should start protesting Israel. Just think of how much money we're bribing them with. Some of your tax money is being given every year to them, add the years up and find how much money you've given in total.

I view Israel as an opressed state, with a tyrannical dictator. I would rather see us invade Israel than Iraq.

Gamer, I agree polls are flawed, but here's some logic.

Just because more voters voted for Bush than kerry (as it has been decided) doesn't mean the majority of Americans think the war is being handled properly. I know a woman who hates war, but voted for Bush because she got a 1600 dollar tx-cut while he was office. I said I know her, I don't like her.

Another thing the majority of Americans is so slimj its irrelevant. If it were around 60-40 it'd mean something more, but let's face it, something like 4 million voters decided the difference between Bush and Kerry. That's tiny. So tiny, that you can split the presidency country 50-50. The point is this. There is only one single point of view deciding matters for the entire Middle-East. The US tells Saudia Arabia what to do and Israel what to do because of their business ties. That's one single point of view, lead by a country that's split evenly, and yet half the country does not get representation, let alone the actual countries who should be deciding matters in the Middle-East, like... say the Middle-East.

See, it may be easier for someone who follows a more right-wing approach to politics to see that there's absolutely no problem with the US having control of the Middle-East, because it's their middle-east.

This may seem like a double post but it's not, my last post in this top was on the 19th, it's been a week.

New topic: The grand old Pat Robertson decided to spark some debate.

Exerpt:



- Pat Robertson

Link, provided by Media Matters

So, because of this quote last night I sat through the entire 700 club, and now I finally understand why so many Christians seem so misled, they've been watching Pat Robertson. The 700 club is like news the same way the Daily Show is like News, they give an exerpt, add a little fib here and there to fill it off, and comment, in order to, in the Daily Show's case, make a joke, or in the 700 club's case, spoon feed oies to Christian Americans all over the country.

Let me give you a little background on Hugo Chaves, because it seems people think he's some sort of dictator.

Venezuala is NOT a dictatorship, and not only that but OTHER candidates are allowed to run, just as a president can run in this country. Hugo Chaves was democratically elected. It is perfectly legitimate and perfectly popular. Something like 85% of the country is in favor of Fidel Castro, and the other 15% tries to make boat trips to the US.

Things that prove Chaves is not a dictator.

There is no law against dissent, the people have a right to dissent.

There is no law against forming Unions, there simply isn't a need for them in a Communist state.

What makes people represent Hugo Chaves as a dictator? As a principle, he hates the US, within reason. He represents the poorest 80% of his nation, and because of that, does not favor the agenda of Oil companies trying to get a good deal in Venezuala.

I definately agree that the 700 Club does lie a lot, but I don't know enough about Venezuela and Chavez to have an opinion on whether or not e's a dictator; I'll do my homework and check back a little later. (After I finish all my calculus homework.)

Well, here's why he has bad relations with the US.

Venezuala is something like our third largest inport of Oil, and now what they want to do is give discount oil (45 dollars a barrel) to Jamaica to save the country something like 200 billion dollars so they'll recover from economic turmoil, and give discount oil directly the the US' poorest communities.

Every election Huga Chavez is re-elected with something like 80% in favor because of his staggering movement to end illiteracy and hunger in Venezuala. Big businesses in the United States sponsor media in Venezuala that demonizes Chavez, but the people have basically seen through that and elect him despite it.

Currently Chavez is working with Iran and Cuba to develop weapons programs, and I've already argued why. If you lived in a country the US (the ONLY country marked by the World Court as a terrorist nation) has written on their enemy list, you would be doing the same thing. Iran is very Secular, Venezuala is Communist. Big arrogant bullies make strange bed-fellows. I know, because I deeply dislike the Iranian government.


Here is some info about Chavez taken from Wikipedia



Learn more.

I definetly disagree to anyone who thinks Chavez is a good president.

especially sine I was in Caracas in '92 during his coup.

There was a suggestion, earlier, that the US should invade Israel instead of Iran. This is possibly the most dangerous idea I've ever heard. If you really, really want to trigger a war that will escalate all the way up to large patches of the world becoming glowing glass car-parks ~ that's probably the best way to do it.

Israel is very very touchy about people pushing them around, and with a damn' good reason. Since the 30's groups of people have been dedicated to wiping them out: on that basis, I'd be bloody twitchy too. "Never forget, never forgive, never again" isn't just a wistful statement for Israel, they really mean it.

I'm also puzzledf as to where the idea that Israel is a dictatorship comes from. Last time I checked, there were democratic elections there...



This is not a flame, or intended to incite. It's just that there is a whole world of difference between a group of people vigourously defending themselves and a genuine dictatorship that wipes out large sections of it's own populace at the whim of the dictator

Nobody said that anyone should attack Israel, someone merely threw out a good point; Israel and the US dominate the Middle East is if it were a dictarotrship, not that the country itself was, if you understand my meaning.

I would like to see people start using words to their actual meanings instead of for rhetorical use to make them sound worse.

Chavez did try an unsuccessful coup d'etat in Venezuela, and if were successful, he would have been a dictator. Luckily he failed, then after made it to presidency a legitimate way, and since then has transformed the country to a socialist democracy and has represented the poorest 80% of the nation. He is not a dictator.

A dictator is someone who leads a state by taking control or inheriting control over it. A dictator is not necessarily bad, though most dictorships are achieved through violence, meaning the dictators tend to be prone to violence as a first solution to a problem.

A terrorist is someone who uses fear as a weapon, that is the definition. A muslim extremist is not a terrorist unless they are using fear as their vehicle to bring about change or do whatever. When the US bombs people, people on the left wing like to call them terrorists, they're not using fear, they're using bombs, fear is a side-effect.

V from V from Vendetta is a terrorist, showing that a terrorist is not necessarily a bad guy. He uses fear as a weapon, but he uses it against his own government, not against the people as a whole.

The US by oppressing other nations absolutely breeds terrorists. The right wing says its BS, but its not. They're pissing people off, then taking their government and their weapons away so they can't fight back with legitimate weapons, so they use fear as their weapon. In Japan after the japanese were basically bankrupt they found a bunch of 18-22 year old kids to crash planes into pearl-habor, their weapon was fear, that was therefore a terrorist act. You may find that breeding terrorists is a necessary consequence to bringing about democracy, or you may not, regardless, that is what the US does.

Good, now stop throwing words around with their improper meanings. Just because they guys in office do doesn't mean we should.

Indeed, the coup was unsuccesful, but it was still attempted, i ahve had tanks rolling down the streets, watching several buildings bombed, and finding out that a close friend got a bullet in the back of the head on the way to school.

the fact he attempted a coup shows his intention.

my dad still lives down there, and he dislikes the president, he is a poor man, barely able to scrape by. He is not the only one, the citizens have tried to overthrow him, and Chavez has extended the length in office, in order to stay in power longer. At the moment, it is very difficult to leave the nation, and U.S. dollars are banded from use, so my dad can never send me birthday and christmas money, becuase he is unable to get it switched voer and sent.

hate to say it, but 80% popularity, in LA is unlikely. and sadly lot's of LA nations have extreme corruption in their governments.

so simply becuase stats showed 80% popularity, I highly doubt it, I get my news from venezuelans. so the U.S. might blow things way out of proportions, but things are not ncie and dandy, i know from experience.

and i never said chavez was a dictator, but his intentions so far point that way. When my dad lost his house in the mudslides of '00 Chavez took several days before he even looked at the issue and tried to offer help. and since you probably don't know, most of th poor people live on the hillsides outsides the cities, meaning that they are the ones to really get the blow, and Chavez who is helping the poor, sits back and does nothing for several days.

FYI-- LA is still pretty much controlled by the elite, Sorry if you had an image that it was fair, but i can guarantee you votes mean diddly squat.

Yeah there are about as many questions about voter fraud in Venezuela as in this country. One thing though, the Venezuelian news is very biased against Chavez. He's showing 70% popularity, and the country is living it, because during the coup against him in 2002 they showed the coup movements and had the leader of the coup on TV thanking the networks for their support, then when the Chavez supporters went to the streets and forced the coup leaders out of office so Chavez could come back in, the Networks played reruns of sitcoms. So, it's not like Chavez is corrupting the polls or the media, quite the opposite. I dislike presidents no matter what but Chavez has done a lot for Venezuelans, and in fact this is the first time I've heard of someone getting shafted by his government, aside from his actions in 1992.

hmm yes, but everyone knows statistics can easily lie. it all depends on who is polled, who does it, and many other factors.

personally i'm removing myself from this topic, i'm too personally involved to reason with the arguments. and if you wish to believe he is a good president that's your choice ^ ^. I just know it's not that way. living in Latin America for 13 years, I know from an outsider's perspective it seem ot be real. Whether it be Chavez, or Mireya Moscoso.

i'll jsut say that becuase of teh situation in Venezuela i ahven't seen my dad since 1998. and the only reason for that was becuase he got tickets to the World Cup finals, and we met him at the airport and within 90 minutes were on another plane leaving for France.

Despite the goverment I miss the nation.

Yeah it is too bad how harsh he's being on relations with the US, also, obviously I understand you have a better grasp on the situation because you have to live it. Latin America is sort of polarizing. Most of the real brutal dictators in the country are US backed because they support corporations that sell to starbucks and all that nonsense, and then you have leaders like Chavez or Castro who seperate themselves from US policiy and therefore make themselves look like they are in it for the people. I'm not trying toa rgue they're good leaders, I'm just saying... at least they're not puppet governments.

New topic: Hurricane Katrina

Begin!


My Opinion: We had the necessary technology to prevent the levee from breaking even uinder a class 5 hurrcane back in 2001. It would have costed 1.5 billion dollars, but the city would not be flooded like it is. Not only that, but the 1/5 billion, I think, was for general protection against class 5 hurricanes.

Now the situation we have is diseased water carrying pathogens of dysentary, and stuff, meaning no drinking water. People are dying trapped in their attics as we speak. People are supposed to be rescuing the, but do we have the man-power to? No. Who usually helps with disaster relief efforts? The National Guard. Where is the National Guard? Iraq.

And about government response. On TV, there was a doctor demanding that they get help air lifting patients out of the hsopital. he said there's a helipad on the roof, and they need to start moving patients that are in critical condition. Today, what's happening to that hospital? Patients are dying.

The law of looting is shoot to kill. That's the only way in a disaster to maintain control, according to law-enforcement. They have no water, they have no food, they have no power, there's a locked store with food and water, and people are being tackled as they try to break through the windows. It's not their fault, no one is helping them.

And what are we going to do now, about three million refugees? Many are going to houston so they can charge up the homeless population in Houston. It won't work. The only thing I can think of is large corporations setting up factory towns.

DoomedOne! For once stop looking at everything from a liberal perspective!

Looked, people can buy flood inscurance, but not everyone does. Here in the middle of North Carolina there was a hurricane that brought alot of water for us thus causing a flood. No one here had flood damage insurance and it was considered a flood risk zone.

Now, sure, it was there for us to buy, but the chance of having a flood where I live is very low. The chance of a class 5 hurricane striking anywhere is relativaly low. They weren't prepared for it. Simply put, I doubt that super levies would of stopped the water anyways. Nature always finds a way (eat that eco nazis!)

Have you heard from first hand experience whats going on down there? I've got several cousins that lived in New Orlean (Nu Orlens) and stayed doing the hurricane so that they could help people after it. Guess what, twice they were robbed at gunpoint by random LOOTERS! OMG if I was down there I'd be shooting anyone that came near our property. But if they asked for food and what not I'd gladly help them.

You really don't know our soldiers if you think that they are just going to shoot at every person they expect to be stealing stuff. Shoot to kill for us now means, wait untill your fired at and then try to scare them away, and if they keep on shoot them.

Oh, and isn't it funny how the National Guard helicopters were being SHOT AT! There trying to rescue people and these damn hoods are shooting at them. It doesnt make sense.

Oh by the way, please donate money to the red cross of their equivalents. You can't give man power though because they have no ways to get down there. So just monetary donations please.

EDIT: Also, you do know that Black Caucase (SP) is calling this a rascist deal now.. That erks me..

Did you know that several red cross members were also robbed at gunpoint while they were handing out food and water and clothes? There friggin animals, they've lost their decency

Alright Chanller calm down.

1. I don't look at anything from a liberal perspective because I'm not a liberal. That's a label you gave me for some of my conviction. I don't think of myself as a liberal, I just look at the facts and make my own judgement. And don't blame it on me watchng the "liberal" news because 1. there's not a liberal bias in the media and 2. I din't watch the news.

2. They had the technology to hold that levee, it would hvae 1.5 billion dollars to withstand a class 5 hurricane.

3. The looter situation with people stealing electronic equipment in a city with no power... I just don't understand. It's like they think the city is going to be useable after the water recedes. Just retards taking advantage of the situation, but as many of them there are, there are more trying to find food and water, because people who can't get any are dying.

4. I doubt the people trapped in their attics are shooting at the National Guard. You know who's shooting at the antional guard, people who have lost their reason, and there are ALWAYS people like that in every situation. Want to stop people from shooting at Nation Guard during disaster relief efforts, you have to take away their guns.

5. So many people live off welfare and lived in shascks I doubt they could afford or even bother with insurance. It's not just a matter on insurance anyway, it's too late for that. The city can't be rebuilt at this point, the government has to step up and jump up the relief efforts. That means pullin the national guards out of Iraq so they can maintain some control. They can't just move refugees to other towns either, these people need homes and jobs. If some corporations set up a few factory towns, that would probably be solution.

Ok, just to tell you, I have seen every bit of footage, read all of the reports and have to say, this is sickening. The news keeps talking about these evil looters, but what they never show you is what they are stealing. I have not seen one plasma screen tv, no stereo system, no cash registers, but I keep hearing about electronics being stolen. For example, they show some poor black man smashing a window with a wooden board. Only once have they shown what he was breaking into. A deserted Deli. Yeah, the evil looter was trying to feed his family.

Also, I keep hearing that "we weren't prepared for this". Bull. You weren't prepared because you didn't heed the warnings and reports you've had since 2001. Maybe we would've been prepared if someone cared.

And as a matter of fact, I completely agree with the Black Caucase. I am certain that they would have had protection from Katrina if New-Orleans was filled with upper-class white people. Heck, even middle class whites would have been prepared. Also, I'm sure there would be men down there if a Haliburton or Shell office was down there.

George Bush taking a flight over New-Orleans was sickening. How dare he pretend that he feels for these people. He didn't care enough to let Canada's army and Cadaver dog team come down and help, and he didn't care enough to let other countries (such as Jamaica) help. All that tells me is he doesn't care.

And whats more, five to six days before government help. One day is too long. Actually, one hour is to long. I could have driven to New Orleans about three times from Toronto, including traffic.

Oh, and the helicopters being shot at, anyone think it might be some poor, hungry guy on his roof trying to say "I'm here"? Also, I feel sorry for people being shot at, maybe no one would be crazy enough to shot at them if they had gotten help earlier.

And about food and water, dispicable. Imagine being evacuated but never given food or water for about six days. Or scrathing your way through your attic, getting to a hospital and then dieing not from injury, but from lack of water.

New orleans has had plenty of warning before 2001.

the city lies below sea level, Many scientists have been predicting that the city would be catastrophically destroyed by a hurricane one day. But I guess beurocrats thought it was wild speculation and never did anything about it.

yes, whose idea was it to build a city, what, 6-9 feet below sealevel?

Being dutch and living below sealevel (along with most of the population) I take offence to that. They should've taken precautions like we do. We don't even have a chance of hurricanes here.

Europe doesn't get hurricanes like the southeast of the US. See, thanks to global warming, hurricanes that form in a certain spot in the atlantic and the gulf of mexico are 50% more dangerous than they used to be. People don't seem the understand what one degree temperature rise entails. It means the barriers reefs will die, it means hurricans will be getting big enough to wipe out entire populations, it means animals living in arctic areas are going to go extinct and that the water is going to rise high enough to take out coastal cities.

Don't say Global warming doesn't exist, it's too late for that. You can say humans aren't the cause of it if you want, but it's obviously happening.

Isreal is a dangerous, dangerous country. The Mossad is probably the biggest threat to the US's saftey, ever.


http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=8&id=348096

Don't forget it's surrounded by a river, a large lake and the ocean, yeah great thinking.

I agree, Bush is not the sympathetic person he wants to be, and by trying to fake it makes him look even worse. My father wants him impeached, and my mother says he a complete moron who only wants money. I myself cannot tell, I'm too young, but the government should have responded to Katrina way before it hit, I mean they knew it might come for days and it took days after to get there, what's with that?

Well, they did evacuate 2/3s of the city.

Yes but don't you think with the predicted damage, and the facts about the city being below sea level would make you want everyone out? I know people have to die, but when it's the government's job to protect they must. I also realize some thought it would not be bad and stayed themselves, that's fine. Lol I heard on the news that people who stayed had to fill out a form with all the basic/medical ect. information on it if they needed help, and if they died as idenification. Not too comforting if it's being used as a body marker eh?

Um, remeber Galviston?... Before gw took a large affect.. and what about those numorous other natural disasters that wiped out entire civilizations?

Also sorry about my outburst...

But look Red. When Bill Clinton came to my town every democrat thought he was a hero, and when GWB comes to town they' wont do the same. Why?

Why does being black make you the deciding factor in whether or not New Orleans could of been saved!? I woulda of said hamster the people, save the history of it all.

Ha, I've seen more rascim come out of my town towards white people then vice versa. But you will just say I'm baised because I'm white. Trust me I'm not, I'm a reporter, I am objective...

EDIT:

I am finally getting to the point where I would love to leave everyone, and go live in South America, Africa, or some Asian village. Where is the honour of anyone anymore? Oh hell, its not gonna work so just steal it anyway!

OMG THATS SO DEGRADING! Why isn't there people who want to work for the better of the country? Why aren't their people that believe death is wrong and want to stop it? I'm honestly losing all hope for the civilized world. I want to go someplace that in contact with its roots, that is honorable and would fight for what is right... I can't debate anymore, I'm to depressed.

There are plenty of people who think death is wrong, they're called capital punishment protesters.

Channler, I'm not sure if it's because you face a lot of racism yourself or you just are racist, but I find a lot of your comments to be rather racist.

The reason all the democrats thought Clinton was such a big hero is because he got right on it with disaster relief and what not. It wasn't just the democrats, the entire country supported him during disaster relief. It's funny, disasters are supposed to be godsends for politicians, they get to go down and be the hero. For every single president that's been in office during a natural disaster they got to get some publicity helping the people. Bush even managed to screw that up and let 10,000 people die whose lives could have been saved if we acted directly after the Hurricane struck by getting them food, water, rescuing them out of attics and roof-tops and air-lifting hospital patients who require electricity. None of that happened, and he shares responsibility for those ten thousand deaths because he had the ability to do something about it.

Being black and poor is the deciding factor, because that's one of the only reasons people can think of for why Bush didn't give a damn. When one of the richest places in the world got bombed he was there the next day, but when a bunch of unemployed blacks get flooded what does he do? Talks about rebuilding Trent Lott's Condo. hamster him.

Oh, and in case you think I'm not doing anything but bitching, I've given money to the redcross and I've volunteered at the Student store that gives its money to disaster relief efforts.

He got right on something (ahem, excuse me I meant someone) else as well.




Yeah, I was talking to Bush the other day.

"Man, you lazy son of an umbrella seller. Why didn't you put on your superhero costume and fly down there to resuce some people with your super abilities. Everyone else was.




Wait a minute- hold on here, so this is how you think it went.

*Mr.Cheney: Mr. President, we've just had a terrible tragedy. New Orleans was hit by a hurricane. People are left homeless, and many are dead.

*President Bush: Where they Blacks?

*Mr.Cheney: Yep.

*President Bush: Ah forget about them, there's plenty to go around.

*Note the extreme sarcasm




Doesn't complain, thats left to the Democrats while he takes action.

You assume because I'm taking into cinsideration that Clinton managed to accomplish what ever other president before accomplished I support him. I love it when people criticize Clinton, because all they talk about is a single stupid sexual offense, not the fact that he bombed countries all around the world for corporate interests or that he supported environment poisoning bills.



He didn't do anything besides sit on his lazy boat and make a trip to Missippi five days after the hurricane struck, after many people died from lack of water, or pathorens in the diseased water.


It's the fact that they were BLACK AND POOR that lead my speculists to think maybe that's why Bush let them die.

I repeat: HE DID NOT TAKE ACTION that's what this whole argument is about, that he did nothing. It's criminal, and Bush is a criminal for being irresponsible left and right. He has a responsibility to this country but the only thing this boatmaster gives a compassion about is lining up the pockets of him and his buddies. I hope he chokes on a lizard.

Heh, DoomedOne is completely right you know..

I lost reason and forgot the form over argument you are to use in this thread. I don't know, something about the second time I saw that guy from the hospital.

If you're asking, what could Bush have done? I'll tell you.

There was a hospital, and this guy came on the air and said something like, "We have a helipad on the roof. There is no electricity and all our patients on life support are going to start dying. We need to air-lift all patients in critical condition out of this hospital." He was trying to reach out to the national guard, to tell them where he was and what he needed in order to save lives.

Three-five days later he was on the air again, this time he was pissed off, "I'm at the hospital at such and such, we have a helipiad on the roof, paitents are dying! We need help right now!" I remember being stunned to hear that no one helped the hospital airlift patients.

5-10 days later, pictures appear in the newspaper of dead people floating around hospitals who could have been saved.