Mikesgirl1

No response from the accuser yet???? Soriano where is the link to prove your assertions on John Kerry support of a gay marriage ban? :blink:

Kerry will understand this and ban it federally too should he win in November. think he said he SUPPORTED the constitutional ban. Please back these up. When did Kerry say he supports a Constitutional ban on gay marriages? Why would he do so for economics?Read my post up... I got it from Kerry's Website. His assertions are baseless.

Penny... No contest. He is been better than Beckett so far.

Kerry would make a ban. He said publically he wants that in his state and him NOT being a man in favor of state rights would hop at the oppurtunity to impose his ideology on others. I think he said he SUPPORTED the constitutional ban. John Kerry on Gay rights John Kerry believes that same-sex couples should be granted rights, including access to pensions, health insurance, family medical leave, bereavement leave, hospital visitation, survivor benefits, and other basic legal protections that all families and children need. He has supported legislation to provide domestic partners of federal employees the benefits available to spouses of federal employees. He was one of 14 Senators -- and the only one up for reelection in 1996 -- to oppose the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). John Kerry supports same-sex civil unions so that gay couples can benefit from the health benefits, inheritance rights, or Social Security survivor benefits guaranteed for heterosexual couples.

worthless thread. Well then... Delete it. :confused

Jeez... Maybe she should run for president of a BANANA REPUBLIC. Maybe she took that whole "bra-burning liberal" thing literally? God, she's almost as ugly as Chelsea Clinton.... Ok, well maybe not that bad. A Chelsea hater??? All that poor girl ever did in her life was to be born the daughter of Clinton...

Kerry daughter heats up Cannes red carpet CANNES, France (AFP) - Alexandra Kerry, 30-year-old daughter of US Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (news - web sites), walked up Cannes' celebrated red-carpet for the premiere of Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill 2" wearing an off-shoulder black number that turned transparent under the flashes. Link to image Kerry, who is showing a short film at the festival, was tailed by the press during her stay at Cannes but French newspapers reported that her staff had warned journalists off questions concerning her famous father. Her film entitled "The Last Full Measure" is being presented in the Short Film Corner section and describes the ravage wreaked on a US family by the Vietnam war. "The characters are fictional", she said. "I wasn't born when my father came back from Vietnam." Kerry has also been seen about town with her French cousin, Brice Lalonde, a former environment minister and Greens leader. OMG boobs! not again!

kerry would support a gay marriage ban ammendment. Not true... ?We need to guarantee equal rights and civil rights and say that, here in America, workers have the right to organize -- women have the right to choose - and justice belongs to everyone regardless of race or gender or sexual orientation.? - John Kerry I think he would rather leave it up to the States to decide than to mess with the constitutional rights.

Furthermore, new evidence suggests that the Trojan war could have happened. Archaeology Was There a Trojan War? Volume 57 Number 3, May/June 2004 by Manfred Korfmann Despite assumptions to the contrary, archaeological work of the new Troy project has not been performed for the purpose of understanding Homer's Iliad or the Trojan War. For the past 16 years, more than 350 scholars, scientists, and technicians from nearly 20 countries have been collaborating on the excavations at the site in northwestern Turkey that began as an Early Bronze Age citadel in the third millennium B.C. and ended as a Byzantine settlement before being abandoned in A.D. 1350. However, as current director of the excavations, I am continually asked if Homer's Trojan War really happened. [...]The main argument against associating these ruins with the great city described in the Iliad has been that Troy in the Late Bronze Age was a wholly insignificant town and not a place worth fighting over. Our new excavations and the progress of research in southeastern Europe has changed such views regarding Troy considerably. It appears that this city was, by the standards of this region at that time, very large indeed, and most certainly of supraregional importance in controlling access from the Mediterranean to the Black Sea and from Asia Minor to southeast Europe and vice versa. Its citadel was unparalleled in the wider region and, as far as hitherto known, unmatched anywhere in southeastern Europe. Troy was also evidently attacked repeatedly and had to defend itself again and again, as indicated by repairs undertaken to the citadel's fortifications and efforts to enlarge and strengthen them. [...]According to the archaeological and historical findings of the past decade especially, it is now more likely than not that there were several armed conflicts in and around Troy at the end of the Late Bronze Age. At present we do not know whether all or some of these conflicts were distilled in later memory into the "Trojan War" or whether among them there was an especially memorable, single "Trojan War." However, everything currently suggests that Homer should be taken seriously, that his story of a military conflict between Greeks and the inhabitants of Troy is based on a memory of historical events--whatever these may have been. If someone came up to me at the excavation one day and expressed his or her belief that the Trojan War did indeed happen here, my response as an archaeologist working at Troy would be: Why not? Interesting... Now all they need to do is find the skeleton of Achilles... :mischief2

The cities on the side of Athens included Troy. Troy was long destroyed and salt pored on the wounds and remnants of the city before the Pelopenisian War. Yup... I apologize for that. I just got confused with the backwards chronology. Troy was not in the pelopennisian wars.

I apologize, the two wars' names always mix me up Regardless, that is not the war depicted. And that one also didn't have as much mythology (and coincidentally enough, the Persians were involved in that war too, so yeah the Athenians did fight the Persians as the Persians came in to the war on the side of the Spartans and the Delian League). The Delian League and the Athenian League just fought, it wasn't as entrenched in mythology as the Trojan War was. I didn't say that the whole story was real... I said "based on real events", the whole Troyan horse, Helen of Troy part, the Gods.... It's all part of mythology. The wars happened. My comment referred to Furmangator's assumption that the wars are mythology and this is not accurate. As I said, Homer's story had a as a background events that happened in Ancient Greece. The Pelopenisian wars were between Athens and Sparta. Each (Sparta and Athens) made alliances with other Greek cities and common enemies. The cities on the side of Athens included Troy. That is why, although the story depicted in the movie is supposed to be based on Homer's Illiad, it chose to make it more "historic" by omitting the Gods. Achilles was legend too, but to this day they are still looking and finding pieces to corroborate that he was real. Whether he was the son of a half goddess... I don't think so. :thumbup

This was depicting the Trojan War, not the Pelopennisian (sp) War. That was fought between an alligned Greek nation against an invading Persian force. This gave us, among others, the Battle of Thermopalea and the Battle of Marathon. The Trojan War is VERY based on mythology. It really did happen, but the story of the whole war is extremely mythological. I am talking about the wars amongst Greek cities. Pelopenisian wars were not fought with the Persians.

Interesting...So people think Berg was actually going over there to join al-Qaeda? So, why did they kill him? Did they think he was a spy? There ia actually a lot of ???? in this Nick Berg story. Why was he still wearing an orange prison suit when he had time to change from the time of his realease? Why is the date stamp on the tape different and incongruent with the time of his body? (date stamp is later than date of his body recovered) Why are the "Terrorists" wearing high top sneakers? (Unusual for Al-Qaeda who has military style boots provided to them) Why is there a chair and yellow walls similar to the chairs in Abu Ghraib prison? Why was he detained by the military? Why do they still deny the detained him, when his parents had to sue the government for his release? Why was his father on an "enemie's list" of the right wing? Why would someone with an ounce of brain refuse a safe trip to the airport and the exit out of the danger zone? :mischief2 :mischief2 :mischief2 hmmmmmm....

some people were pissed that the gods weren't more involved in the movie...i'm glad it wasn't...it would have made it more hokie. Some people also thought it wasn't too realistic...newsflash! Movies aren't that realistic in general...especially when it's based on a war that is a part of MYTHOLOGY! The pelopenisian wars are mithology????? :blink: WOW Homer's Illiad is a fictional story but the events it evolved in where based in reality. Read more about ancient Greek history.

But the people that want to think of Arabs as animals to ease their conscience don't want to see this stuff.? They want to keep that "evildoer" image the Bush camp spreads. Yeah... That is the problem. President Bush caters to the simplistic minds of the average Americans, were you are separated into easy categories... The "good guys" here, the "bad guys" there... The world is a very complex place for this president to ever understand. THANK YOU! There are some questions Billy Graham can't answer for W. There are som questions outside of the realm of ethical Biblicism. The world isn't black and white and America is capable of evil things. It has nothing to do with his intelligence. He is merely attempting to convey concepts and policies to an incredibly dumb American public. You forget, the reason why so many like Bush is for the exact reason you are sniping at him for.... Because he's plain spoken. Ok... that is your spin on the issue. I really don't think this President is dumb at all. He is very smart. That is why he is playing "stupid" and "simplistic", because he knows it appeals to the basic stupid American. There are many colors between black and white. This administration is just purposedly ignoring that simple fact. "Evil doers", "Wrong doers" I think those words apply more to them than to the people they label with those words.

Im pretty much in concurrence with shamrock. This is what Pat Buchanan wrote: A time for truth With pictures of the sadistic sexual abuse of Iraqis in Abu Ghraib prison still spilling out onto the front pages, it is not too early to draw some conclusions. The neoconservative hour is over. All the blather about "empire," our "unipolar moment," "Pax Americana" and "benevolent global hegemony" will be quietly put on a shelf and forgotten as infantile prattle. America is not going to fight a five- or 10-year war in Iraq. Nor will we be launching any new invasions soon. The retreat of American empire, begun at Fallujah, is underway. With a $500 billion deficit, we do not have the money for new wars. With an Army of 480,000 stretched thin, we do not have the troops. With April-May costing us a battalion of dead and wounded, we are not going to pay the price. With the squalid photos from Abu Ghraib, we no longer have the moral authority to impose our "values" on Iraq. Bush's "world democratic revolution" is history. Given the hatred of the United States and Bush in the Arab world, as attested to by Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, it is almost delusional to think Arab peoples are going to follow America's lead. It is a time for truth. In any guerrilla war we fight, there is going to be a steady stream of U.S. dead and wounded. There is going to be collateral damage ? i.e., women and children slain and maimed. There will be prisoners abused. And inevitably, there will be outrages by U.S. troops enraged at the killing of comrades and the jeering of hostile populations. If you would have an empire, this goes with the territory. And if you are unprepared to pay the price, give it up. The administration's shock and paralysis at publication of the S&M photos from Abu Ghraib tell us we are not up to it. For what is taking place in Iraq is child's play compared to what we did in the Philippines a century ago. Only there, they did not have digital cameras, videocams and the Internet. Iraq was an unnecessary war that may become one of the great blunders in U.S. history. That the invasion was brilliantly conceived and executed by Gen. Franks, that our fighting men were among the finest we ever sent to war, that they have done good deeds and brave acts, is undeniable. Yet, if recent surveys are accurate, the Iraqis no longer want us there. Outside the Kurdish areas, over 80 percent of Sunnis and Shias view us as occupiers. Over 50 percent believe there are occasions when U.S. soldiers deserve killing. The rejoicing around every destroyed military vehicle where U.S. soldiers have died should tell us that the battle for hearts and minds is being lost. Why are we so hated in the Middle East? Three fundamental reasons: Our invasion of Iraq is seen as a premeditated and unjust war to crush a weak Arab nation that had not threatened or attacked us, to seize its oil. We are seen as an arrogant imperial superpower that dictates to Arab peoples and sustains regimes that oppress them. We are seen as the financier and armorer of an Israel that oppresses and robs Palestinians of their land and denies them rights we hypocritically preach to the world. Until we address these perceptions and causes of the conflict between us, we will not persuade the Arab world to follow us. What should Bush do now? He should declare that the United States has no intention of establishing permanent bases in Iraq, and that we intend to withdraw all U.S. troops after elections, if the Iraqis tell us to leave. Then we should schedule elections at the earliest possible date this year. The Iraqi peoples should then be told that U.S. soldiers are not going to fight and die indefinitely for their freedom. If they do not want to be ruled by Sheik Moqtada al-Sadr or some future Saddam, they will have to fight themselves. Otherwise, they will have to live with them, even as they lived with Saddam. For in the last analysis, it is their country, not ours. The president should also offer to withdraw U.S. forces from any Arab country that wishes us to leave. We have already pulled out of Saudi Arabia. Let us pull out of the rest unless they ask that we remain. Our military presence in these Arab and Islamic countries, it would seem, does less to prevent terror attacks upon us than to incite them. A presidential election is where the great foreign-policy debate should take place over whether to maintain U.S. troops all over the world, or bring them home and let other nations determine their own destiny. Unfortunately, we have two candidates and two parties that agree on our present foreign policy that is conspicuously failing. Interesting. I dont agree with Buchanan on most of this. Just find it interesting that he would declare this a failure and a blunder. That is a great piece... We do have little options do we? Someone, somewhere needs to take a stand, nip it in the butt and do the right thing once and for all, but I'm afraid that this will never happen.

But the people that want to think of Arabs as animals to ease their conscience don't want to see this stuff. They want to keep that "evildoer" image the Bush camp spreads. Yeah... That is the problem. President Bush caters to the simplistic minds of the average Americans, were you are separated into easy categories... The "good guys" here, the "bad guys" there... The world is a very complex place for this president to ever understand.

I had felt discouraged by the bullpen start against the Dodgers, but I have to say that our starting pitchers gave me my hope back... Penny, Pavano, Dontrelle and Mr. Awesome (Becket) are one of a kind. I'm pretty sure our starting pitching is the envy of many teams. Pavano was awesome in this game... I was so angry he didn't get the win because he really deserved it. Well... At least he didn't get a loss.

I feel hopeless everytime Gonzo comes to the plate, but I don't care what everyone says, this guys is an awesome defensive asset in our team, I can't count in my hands the times he's saved our asses from hits that would have been runs. Even if I scream every time he gets striked out, I jump of joy when he makes spectacular catches... Sorry, I'll take his .200 anytime.

For the people that were saying they hadn't seen muslims condemning the beheading... I have news for you... Hezbollah, Hamas denounce beheading Saudi Arabia, UAE also weigh in with condemnations BEIRUT, Lebanon - Two Islamic militant groups, Hezbollah and Hamas, issued strongly worded condemnations Thursday of the videotaped beheading of an American civilian in Iraq. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates became the first Arab governments to criticize the slaying of Nicholas Berg, and newspapers in the region, which initially gave little coverage to the gruesome video, began to excoriate the killers. Berg was beheaded Saturday by men claiming to act on behalf of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an affiliate of Osama bin Laden, as revenge for the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. soldiers. The videotape, posted on an al-Qaida-linked Web site Tuesday, drew revulsion around the world. A CIA official said Thursday an analysis of the voice on the video had concluded the masked man who severed Berg?s head was al-Zarqawi. Arab governments and Islamic militant groups, most of which have spoken out repeatedly about the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, initially kept silent about the videotaped slaying. Hezbollah condemns ?brutal, cruel? action On Thursday, however, Lebanon?s Hezbollah and the militant Palestinian group Hamas, both labeled terrorist organizations by the United States, said the beheading was appalling and un-Islamic. In a statement faxed to The Associated Press, Hezbollah called the 26-year-old Berg?s killing an ?extremely brutal and cruel? act. ?Hezbollah condemns this grisly act which has caused great harm to Islam and to Muslims by this group which falsely claims to belong to the religion of mercy, compassion and genuine human values,? the statement said. ?By its suspicious actions and links, this group belongs to the Pentagon school ? the school of killings, occupation, crime, torture and immoral practices as exposed by the big scandal in the occupation prisons.? Osama Hamdan, Hamas? representative in Lebanon, denounced both Berg?s killers and President Bush. ?I condemn this brutal act and sympathize with the family of the slain American man, who I consider a victim of the wrong U.S. policies in the region,? Hamdan told The Associated Press. ?U.S. President George Bush and [berg?s] killers are equally responsible.? Both Hezbollah and Hamas said the beheading hurt Arab causes, and predicted the United States would use it to turn attention away from the prisoner abuse scandal. Both groups have condemned the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States, and Hezbollah has denounced a few other major terrorist attacks that targeted civilians, but the language they used Thursday was unusually tough. LINK

1) From what I've read and connections I've made I think there was a very small if any presence of al-qaeda before we invaded Iraq. Why do I say this? Iraq was led by a relatively secular leader. It seems to me you are searching for viable reasons to be in this war. The barrel of possible excuses have almost run dry, so know you'd like to think we are fighting al-qaeda, which WE brought to the country. However, if this is not what you are trying to say, then I'm not really sure if we should stay now that al-Qaeda is there. I don't think we will catch them in Iraq. We jsut started Cold War part 2 in my opinion. Islam vs Christianity or the West vs. the Arab world. Either way its just another reason for the military industrial complex to continue and I hate it. 2) He's as much a politician as GW. I never see you posting the political moves he's making. How about wandering the country raising millions of dollars while Rumsfeld travels to Iraq to give morale? We could both go on an on about these types of things. Was it political? Maybe, maybe not. The more important question. Who cares? 3) At first, I answered yes to this question in my mind. But I am very against killing of any kind, and I think the best option in this case is a public capture scenario. Show the world we are not animals and give the man a fair trial. And in the interest of discussion what is your current justification for this war? Can you justify this war anymore? Even my Republican friends think its now a mistake. 1) Agree 100% Al-Qaeda did not have any links to Iraq. Now, of course, it is a happy hunting ground. We've created the best conditions for them to come here and multiply. 2) What Shamrock said. If he wants to kiss ass for his political gain, he is just doing the same ol' thing all politicians do. Bush is a master on that. 3) Disagree with Shamrock. This is a known and self-proclaimed terrorist. He needs to be "terminated" one way or another. However, if we are lucky enough to capture him alive, I won't say execute him, but a public trial with Arab translation ought to help teaching a lesson of integrity and respect for human life, that so many of these people lack (terrorists, not all arabs).