Kbzon59

Is this over???

Drunk people!!!... Maybe this is not so bad after all

What's the difference? It doesn't exist anymore...

Uh, and other thing, life (no matter whose) is not supposed to have a purpose. It just is. If that is your philosphy(life must have a purpose), then we might very well kill all people on welfare

Saddam is not a sick man whose psyche need to be studied, nor is he one of those great wrongdoers that will be forever remembered. He is no Hitler and he is no Vlad the Impaler. There is not much to be studied in him. He is only a man affected by power. He is not a good "people like him" example. I am not saying he was a good ruler, but he certainly wasn't mad. If the purpose that Navajo proposes is to be used, then Saddam can very well enter an insanity-plea. I don't agree with the death penalty. However, if he is found guilty and the crimes he comitted are recognized by iraquian law (not american or american dictated or new americanized) as deserving of DP, then he must be executed, just to respect iraquian state of law. However, if the laws that will put Saddam on trial were written by himself, during his ruling, then those laws should not be applied. Why? Because Saddam was an illegitimate ruler, hence what he does must be removed. So new laws will have to be dictated. The only problem with this is that those new laws will be totally americanized, and most likely, will use the Commonlaw system, instead of the vastly superior Roman germanic system. The new laws will probably be a carbon copy of american laws, and that, under any point of view, is wrong. Other problem would be that, for a new, totally iraquian set of laws to be written, at least 3 or 4 years might be needed. I am sure that, one way or another, Saddam will be executed, legally or not.

Why don't americans impeach their prez more often? Why hasn't teh people asked to remove bush? Has people really fallen for that "we are trying our best to bring our boys back" and cant see the fact that bush simply has to make a phone call to bring them back and chooses not to? Because of course, americans care more for 1 fal;len solfdier thn for thousand of iraqi children I have always been astonished by the american coception that the prez embodies the best of the nationm. If that is true, my friends, you are in trouble. Your prez is not very bright, he is warloving and unadequate. Do you gusy treally think he has a legit shotr at a second term? I hope not! Do you think he can sleep at night? And dont you get me satrted iN Vicente Fox. At least he hasnt killed anyone...

But don't buy any guns!!!!!!!!!

Best: Walther PPK 7.65 Beretta is for ladies Stirred, not Shaken

The theme of the "cause of homosexuality". Why are people gay?.

Of couse not, I am proof of taht, but mostly, it is integrated by americans

Now, is there any theoy regarding thsi theme that is actually supported by evidence? Total, undisputable evidence? Is homosexuality really a subject for biology and other natural sciences or is it destined to be for social and individual sceinces like sociology and psichology? On the latest polls, I say I have to agree with Aardvark, homosexuality is not an evolution related issue. Hisp oint that homosexuality doesnt reallu help to the survival of the specie is quite strong.

Ok, so it is offensive, tahnks for asnwering the question. And since you made me a favor, improving my english, I will improve your sapnish in the same manner: never call "joto" or "puto" to a latin gay man. By the way, is "queer" offensive?

While I am not a creationist, isnt it much easier for religious people to accept, say, that god created earth and austrolopithecus africanus and that god itmslef created evolution? Why the senseless radicalism?

Maybe the problem for the religious groups about the prevalecence of science is the fact that sceince is getting "too public". In a way, science is a slap in the face of some religions. So when a scientist fields a theory adn has open field to expose it, unlike religious propaghanda the religiosu leaders feel offended. I am just expressing an opinion.

But does "homo" offend people (gay people). Culd I say "Look at those homos" instead of "Look at that gay couple" (not that I am gonna stare at them) Writing "homosexual people" is quite long, so if it is politically corect I would prefer to write "homos" Dont dodge the question, of course I know that "homo" in sicence is perfectly normal.