-Demosthenes-

I think it's a poor comparison. Most of these sorts of "analogies" are. It is a problem when someone over-simplifies a system as vast and complex as a society and government into something small and simple. Parents have more control over their children then do governments (most) and Parents and families are under higher authorities in law when they do things wrong. There are many more problems with the comparison. It just doesn't work. You can easily compare the government and its citizens to a family, or for that matter anything you want to prove any point you want. Analogies seem to be ways people manipulate a situation into another which will more easily cast in their view of things in the world as positive.

I've noticed it is a little more "oily" if you forget to drain the grease out of the ground beef before you make the sauce... but I don't know if that's it.

Cute, a sharp jab at my state, religion, and political veiwpoint. There's a little "trifecta" for you that could rival Bush's.

Don't worry, it gets boring... been to the grocery store like a billion times...

So no one can ever know how much of the population of the Colonies was English, or if the Navigation acts, or even if Parliment even existed because we can't test it and can't see it. That sucks

I stand corrected. You mean quotes from historians who's conclusions support mine?

When was this?

Wait a minute, that was after the revoltion. And if I'm not mistaken The U.S. official made a law involving slavery first, although all it did was outlaw parts of it (like importation, and involvement in international trade), America took the step first a year before Britain passed there law, 31 years after the Revolution. Now I have to find some linkage I suppose...

Ok, I'll look for some links. http://www.ushistory.org/march/phila/background.htm http://www.ushistory.org/march/phila/background.htm http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761569964/American_Revolution.html http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741502191_6/History_of_Colonial_America.html You ask for it...

Just messenger, using yahoo? I don't have any experience with that, I assume you could sign in using your .NET passport and change it somehow...

Do you have MSN, or just a hotmail account??

Not all, the Colonies get passed the French and Indian War, during which they were very independent with little restriction or help from "The Mother Country". So after Britain didn't have to deal with France anymore all of a sudden Britain decides that they want to control the colonies again. This was not very liked. Added to this was the fact that about a third of the population of the population was not even English in decent, and they didn't like this whole "Church of England" thing, most didn't have a religion or were in some other protestant religion. So after the French and Indian War all of a sudden the Colonies are being taxed. I'm sure you can imagine what if would feel like to be taxed and only have "virtual representation" meaning the people who represent you in parlament don't even have to be from the Colonies to represent the Colonies. They could be anyone. Now we get to mercantilism. Britain had the idea that they could buy raw materials and crops from the Colonies, then make products and sell them back at an elevated price. Now to accomplish this they did a couple of things: The Navigation Acts of the 17th century prohibited the Colonists form making or producing anything other than crops or raw materials. In 1732 they ordered more specifically that they could not sell colony made hats, then they made the molasses act that made it so they could buy any molasses from the West Indies (unless they wanted to pay for the high tariffs). Then in 1750 parliament ordered that the Colonies couldn’t manufacture Iron products (so we would have to buy them from Britain). The practice of mercantilism is so obvious, so blatant; it was only a matter of time before it blew up in Britain’s face. If it’s greedy to not want to be taken advantage of, and not have to sell and buy all of our stuff to Britain, then there is something wrong with your definition of greedy.

I think I understand, but it still doesn't sit well.

If we'd had a billion threads about Mississippi killings in th '60's I'd be tired of them as well.

Well... I really don't think that hypnotists really do anything, but it is because you think it does that it works. If this is what you’re after, I enjoy similar discussions. I've always thought that phobias were weird. I am afraid of needles, and blood and stuff, I don't think it's quite a phobia... I'm not sure. I've found that phobias are usually based on a very rational fear, like things that can hurt you. Others could have possibly been based on traumatic events or a mix of both reasons. I wonder why we have phobias. I think that it is a rather recent thing (relatively) when we starting getting enough leisure time to think about things a lot, and now we think about some scary things a little bit too much. I've also noticed that doing things that involve surviving are very enjoyable. This is why camping is so enjoyable; you can work on staying alive by doing things like making shelter and cooking food outdoors. This is true to a greater extent in situations like war, it's exhilarating to plan, fight, and stay alive (hence videogames). It's very weird and hard to explain. My point is that since now-a-days we don't really have to concentrate on "surviving" much more, maybe it's being diverted to some other thing that can think about. We might need a certain about of "survival thinking" and having a phobia and actively planning and avoiding it how we in modern days "survive"?

Hmmm, never thought of it that way. I guess you're right, it is hard to see both sides sometimes.

I find this very confusing. You can kill a fetus, but not damage it? Don't you have to damage it to kill it? Wouldn't that be wrong? Or is it only if it will be born, in which case it sucks to be fetus. Not only can you be killed legally, but the rules are very confusing. That's precisely why some people are against abortion, we don't know when it becomes a child. So why not be safe and not destroy it (except in extreme cases)?

I'd be rather uneasy to base weather someone lives or dies on which way uses less resources...

How is there any kind of "gay" class or minority? Homosexuals kinda of a behavior and a frame of mind. Who cares? That's not a class anymore than people who like orange soda is a class. There is no prejudice or discrimination. Laws that prohibit two men (or women) from adopting don't say anything about "sexual preference". Personally I don't care what your "secual preference" is, all it means is that two men (or women) can't adopt, wether they be straght, gay, or anything else! The same is true of marraige between two of the same sex, and any law that may prohibit it in the future (which I doubt will be ever passed anyways). It would prohibit marraige between people of the same sex, not nessicarily gay. They wouldn't let two straight people of the same sex be married either, I don't see any prejudice. The law applies to everyone the same, everyone is equal.

How is it bullying, if you fail, then you fail... I don't understand.

So conservatives stereotype? Sounds like a stereotype of conservatives, 1veedo.

My experience in death I didn't feel anything except helplessness. I felt like there should have been something I could have done... definitely not empty.

If "deffered success" was used widely enough then it would eventually mean the same thing anyways, and become a negative phrase, meaning the same thing as "fail". Then they would have to come up with another one

Must we do this again? This is a tired subject Kirby.

Yeah what does that mean? No, it means "close to" or "near to" European, or something smilar.