Zeta

[QUOTE=Baron Samedi][size=1]What if we look at this from another side: aside from medical uses, what good does marijuana do? It obviously has problems...but lets look at it's good aspects, if any. If you can dredge up some overall positive and otherwise [through safer etc. measures] unatainable effect of marijuana...go right ahead. I'd be interested.[/size][/QUOTE] What good does alcohol or cigarettes do? They are legal. The thing with weed though is that you don't have to add anything to it to make it better. You can really only lace it with other illegal drugs. Granted you can do it with other chemicals and stuff, but that is highly unlikely. It all depends on how you grow it. Growing determines how good of stuff it will be. Companies wouldn't have to add anything at all. A lot of people buy marijuana because it is less likely to be laced with something than lets say cocaine or heroin. If they find out companies would be lacing it, I highly doubt they would smoke it. [QUOTE]Marijuana, especially hydro but any ole home grown will do it as well, can cause paranoid pscitzophrenia. It's rare, but it happens, as my uncle is living proof and has to be medicated every day of his life to help with the disease.[/QUOTE] There have been no studies to say this is true. Sorry man, I just ain't buying that it was because of weed. He is probably like the only one to get paranoid schizophrenia because of just smoking.(Im assuming here it doesn't run in your family or anything) Just not buying it. Your father probably had something else going on in his brain, my apologies if that sounded rude. It doesn't cause it. It only causes problems with it if it runs in your family, or he all ready had it without any foreknowledge. There must have been something going on, possibly depression or something, to cause him to get paranoid schizophrenia. I highly doubt it was because of the weed. We debate because we can.

If you look at it this way you will see where a lot of legalizing wishes come from. Without it being sold on the streets, the chances of coming into contact with cocaine, heroin, etc will be slim, unless you go looking for them specifically. With it being sold on the streets there is a higher chance to come into contact with these drugs. Now if by gateway drug you mean that they may come into contact with other drugs while buying it, then I can understand this theory. But it certainly doesn't lead you to wanting to try another drug. The closest thing to a gateway drug is in the way I explained. They come into contact with other drugs because their dealer most likely doesn't just sell marijuana. Even then many don't try the harder stuff. With government regulation lacing weed will not be as common. It is laced so dealers can make more profit. Without the dealers selling marijuana they won't be lacing anything besides their other stuff. Without the person going to these dealers they won't come into contact with any other drugs, thus breaking down this so called gateway drug. It isn't a gateway drug. Only in the way that I explained. Just because heroin users have smoked marijuana means nothing. When pot usage went down or up, harder drugs stayed the same. If you do heroin or cocaine or something, it is a given that you will smoke marijuana here and there. It is the least harmful of these so-called bad drugs. The only way that marijuana will play any form in schizophrenia is if you are all ready predetermined to have it. Meaning it runs in your family or you have it all ready. There are have been no studies that have proven that marijuana causes schizophrenia is those without it in their family. It is a minor psychoactive drug out there. If you want to say a drug will cause schizophrenia look at PCP, not marijuana. Yes it causes short-term memory loss. But really, many people just smoke and watch movies, listen to music and chill with friends. They don't do anything that requires them to remember important facts. Hell, I had problems remembering things way before I tried pot. I couldn't remember what I did a week before. Only if you do something that actually requires your attention will the short-term memory loss have a huge impact. Otherwise not remembering a movie or what you talked about with a friend isn't as important. As Syke said, there are ways more ways to smoke pot. Ingestion is a very safe way to get high compared to smoking. It gives you a completely different high without the smoke in your lungs. A pipe clears out resin/tar. It accumulates on the sides of your pipe, so you know you aren't smoking any of that crap. Granted some gets through of course, but more is trapped on the sides. As Syke said, a water bong helps clear out the bad stuff too when the smoke travels through the water. It filters it out giving a nice smooth smoke. A vaporizer is healthier than all those, except for eating. You just heat the weed up until the THC itself rises out and you inhale that. There are many ways to smoke weed that are less harmful than cigarettes. I've never heard of nausea nor vomiting. And there are no conclusive tests to show it lowers sperm count. Go onto that site I posted and search through the news articles and the forums. You will see very many people much more knowledgeable on this subject than I. I am basically saying what they are saying, without as much detail .

Well if you actually go and read the website, you will see that it is in fact more than it seems at face vaule. Again, read the link I posted concerning gateway drug, addiction, etc. Because obviously you didn't read it, or if you did you payed it half mind with the years and years of it being a gateway drug forced into your brain. It really does explain the common myths, and has supporting facts to dispell these common myths. [QUOTE]This is why it is a gateway drug.[/QUOTE] How is what you stated the reason it is a gateway drug? Needing more of it will cause you to get more of just marijuana itself. For one they won't go looking for coke to get the high from marijuana. Judging from my personal experience with both, I don't find a likeness. You'r body can work without the drug in your system. You can't get addicted to marijuana. I will quote parts of this article for you and others to read. [b]Essentially all drugs are used in "an addictive fashion" by some people. However, for any drug to be identified as highly addictive, there should be evidence that substantial numbers of users repeatedly fail in their attempts to discontinue use and develop use-patterns that interfere with other life activities. National epidemiological surveys show that the large majority of people who have had experience with marijuana do not become regular users. In 1993, among Americans age 12 and over, about 34% had used marijuana sometime in their life, but only 9% had used it in the past year, 4.3% in the past month, and 2.8% in the past week. 59 A longitudinal study of young adults who had first been surveyed in high school also found a high "discontinuation rate" for marijuana. While 77% had used the drug, 74% of those had not used in the past year and 84% had not used in the past month. 60 Of course, even people who continue using marijuana for several years or more are not necessarily "addicted" to it. Many regular users - including many daily users - consume marijuana in a way that does not interfere with other life activities, and may in some cases enhance them. There is only scant evidence that marijuana produces physical dependence and withdrawal in humans. When human subjects were administered daily oral doses of 180-210 mg of THC - the equivalent of 15-20 joints per day - abrupt cessation produced adverse symptoms, including disturbed sleep, restlessness, nausea, decreased appetite, and sweating. The authors interpreted these symptoms as evidence of physical dependence. However, they noted the syndrome's relatively mild nature and remained skeptical of its occurrence when marijuana is consumed in usual doses and situations. 61 Indeed, when humans are allowed to control consumption, even high doses are not followed by adverse withdrawal symptoms. 62 Signs of withdrawal have been created in laboratory animals following the administration of very high doses. 63 Recently, at a NIDA-sponsored conference, a researcher described unpublished observations involving rats pretreated with THC and then dosed with a cannabinoid receptor-blocker. 64 Not surprisingly, this provoked sudden withdrawal, by stripping receptors of the drug. This finding has no relevance to human users who, upon ceasing use, experience a very gradual removal of THC from receptors. The most avid publicizers of marijuana's addictive nature are treatment providers who, in recent years, have increasingly admitted insured marijuana users to their programs. 65 The increasing use of drug-detection technologies in the workplace, schools and elsewhere has also produced a group of marijuana users who identify themselves as "addicts" in order to receive treatment instead of punishment. 66[/b] [b]MARIJUANA IS A "GATEWAY" TO THE USE OF OTHER DRUGS Advocates of marijuana prohibition claim that even if marijuana itself causes minimal harm, it is a dangerous substance because it leads to the use of "harder drugs" such as heroin, LSD, and cocaine. THE FACTS Most users of heroin, LSD and cocaine have used marijuana. However, most marijuana users never use another illegal drug. Over time, there has been no consistent relationship between the use patterns of various drugs. 83 As marijuana use increased in the 1960s and 1970s, heroin use declined. And, when marijuana use declined in the 1980s, heroin use remained fairly stable. For the past 20 years, as marijuana use-rates fluctuated, the use of LSD hardly changed at all. Cocaine use increased in the early 1980s as marijuana use was declining. During the late 1980s, both marijuana and cocaine declined. During the last few years, cocaine use has continued to decline as marijuana use has increased slightly. In 1994, less than 16% of high school seniors who had ever tried marijuana had ever tried cocaine - the lowest percentage ever recorded. In fact, as shown below, the proportion of marijuana users trying cocaine has declined steadily since 1986, when a high of more than 33% was recorded. Proportion of Marijuana Users Ever Trying Cocaine High School Seniors, 1975-1994 84 1975: 19% 1980: 27% 1985: 31% 1990: 22% 1976: 19% 1981: 28% 1986: 33% 1991: 22% 1977: 20% 1982: 27% 1987: 30% 1992: 18% 1978: 22% 1983: 28% 1988: 26% 1993: 17% 1979: 25% 1984: 29% 1989: 23% 1994: 16% In short, there is no inevitable relationship between the use of marijuana and other drugs. This fact is supported by data from other countries. In the Netherlands, for example, although marijuana prevalence among young people increased during the past decade, cocaine use decreased - and remains considerably lower than in the United States. Whereas approximately 16% of youthful marijuana users in the U.S. have tried cocaine, the comparable figure for Dutch youth is 1.8 percent. 85 Indeed, the Dutch policy of allowing marijuana to be purchased openly in government-regulated "coffee shops" was designed specifically to separate young marijuana users from illegal markets where heroin and cocaine are sold. 86[/b] If you want to know where I got these statistics and facts, go to my post before this with the link. Don't take everything at face vaule. Actually read what is said on the site, and you will realize it is a quite thorough and researched site. Same as don't judge a book on its cover.

Well yeah of course wrist cutter. But who really [i]wants[/i] to live with their parents after turning 18, heh. [QUOTE] Sixteen-year-olds are still kids, yet it is legal for them to smoke.[/QUOTE] Really? I have yet to hear that. My guess is this law is around for just where you live? Or is it for the whole nation? Where I used to live it was you have to be 18 to buy or smoke. Yes marijuana releases things into your body. Of course. But when you look at it in the view that you don't smoke as much as you would a cigarette, the toxins don't take as much as a toll. I'm not saying that it is healthier than cigarettes ten fold or anything. You can't get addicted to marijuana as far as I am aware. You can just become dependent if anything. There is a difference between the two. Just as Kennedy was dependent on his medicine for whatever problems it was that he had, but he wasn't addicted. There have been no deaths ever recorded due to smoking marijuana. I'm not talking about car accidents or anything that could happen when being recklass while under the influence, I am talking about just by smoking marijuana itself. Angel is right here. I have read articles from various sources that show that marijuana is not a gateway drug. It was shown that as marijuana usage went down, there was still the increase in cocaine use for example. Now if you are talking about that it introduces you to other drugs, then yes I can see it as a gateway drug. With it being illegal one must get it through illegal means of course. Doing this brings you into contact with the harder drugs. It isn't a gateway drug. DARE just teaches you this to frighten you from ever doing it. I really don't think that legalizing it will make it easier to get a hold of than it all ready is. If the government legalizes it and regulates it, they will put restrictions o n it as well. I believe that people knowing that they will be able to smoke it legally will just wait for a bit. And also with the regulations there won't be a way for one to come into contact with the harder drugs, unless of course one goes looking for those themselves. I can find articles conerning the health issues and the topic of it being a gateway drug if anyone wishes? Well I decided to just get ya'll a link with some common misconceptions of marijuana. Hopefully I am allowed to link to the site, heh. [url]http://www.marijuana.com/myths.php3[/url]

[QUOTE] Kids still smoke tobacco because they think it's cool. [/QUOTE] Because they are not legally allowed to smoke it perhaps? Either way you look at it, they are still breaking the law. Legally they cannot be smoking it, but adults can. So naturally they smoke because they are breaking the law, a law that many don't care about, but still a law. Marijuana is in fact, not as bad as cigarettes. It is a common mis-conception. With cigarettes one can become addicted all to easily. You need more and more to get the buzz, which lasts maybe, maybe 15 minutes at the most. You can't stop. But with marijuana you know when you are high, and usually you just stop there. I read an article on this issue a few weeks back that explains everything in much more detail than I am, I will try to find it if anyone is interested. It isn't like they would allow kids to smoke marijuana if it were legalized. There would still be restrictions. Most likely it would be until they are 18, same age as cigarettes. Or possibly 21 since it is more like alcohol than a cigarette. At those ages, you are no longer a child but an adult, and your parents can't run your life anymore. They may not want you to, but as long as you would be doing it legally they can't stop you.

[QUOTE]So, I am doing a public policy project on the legalization of marijuana. I am personally for it. One of the main things that I have heard was that alot of people that use marijuana, not for medicine, use it to rebel against parents, government, etc. or to "relieve" stress. Now I for one have tried marijuana, and when I tried it I did feel good, but it wasnt right for me. But the thing is, I think that if we did legalize the drug, then more people would stop using it because there is no sense of "rebellion" left in the drug...[/QUOTE] That is EXACTLY what I think on this subject. They do it because kids are told not to do it. They like to feel "cool" knowing they are not following their parents/govt. laws. I myself was quite a big smoker of marijuana up until a few months ago. The fun had left me. I no longer felt cool while doing it. I just felt how stupid I am for wasting so much money on something that is worthless in the long run when I should be putting my money towards a new car, college, computer, anything that will actually help meh. I just tried it again the other day and thought to myself "I wasted so much money on this?" Imagine the money the government could make by taxing it if it were legalized. Not only would it help the sick if it was prescribed to them, it would keep children away from much harder drugs such as cocaine, heroin, etc. With it being illegal, they have to get it from the black market basically, which only increases their chances of coming into contact with other, harder drugs. I couldn't have said it better myself Serraph.

I wasn't looking at it in a way or being outside these forums, or any forums for that matter, as I stated above. He specifically talked about two of his friends who had posts that no longer post here because they do not have a grasp on their language. As I said in one of my other posts, if someone comes onto these forums with less than a decent knowledge of their language they are branded as "n00bs" who aren't intelligent. They are then possibly banned, or allowed to stay and improve. My whole basis for my argument was on this idea of someone coming into these or any forums with rules such as here going "hi, Im n3w hear, wut do u do 2 post?" I've seen it countless times where people such as that are branded as stupid and are banned as a result; not saying it has happened here, I am not sure. I openly admitted to not fully understanding his original post. Now that he has clarified it up in one of his, I no longer have that problem. Had he done that in the first place, I wouldn't have even started on this. [QUOTE]*sigh* You don?t get it? no one is any less intelligent based on his ability to use language. He?s just less able to USE his intelligence. You don?t become smarter upon talking, or reading a book.. your intelligence just permits a permeation of that knowledge! Get it now?[/QUOTE] Without reading/writing how will you even be aware of ideas? How will you even know what you are thinking without a language to define certain things that describe what you are feeling? You are smiling. Without a grasp on the word happy, joyous, whichever word it may be, you won't know that you are either of them. You will then be able to decipher what it is you are feeling, and apply the word happy to it. How do you not become smarter by reading a book or speaking? Without them, reading at least, you will know nothing. You don't come out of your mom?s womb with an all-knowing brain. You have to read/do/whatever to get the things into your mind, which then enables you to get smarter. I am horrible at math, plain horrible. Someone who knows how to do the math problems is obviously smarter than me. How do they get smarter than me? They read the books, practice the problems. How do they understand what is being said? The know their language. They know what the words being used mean. Without a grasp on their language, they wouldn't be able to do this. [QUOTE]Sure, language is important to share ideas. But the idea, as long as someone has a grasp on them, conceptually DO NOT REQUIRE A LANGUAGE! Granted, you can?t share them and the community will never learn of your genius.[/QUOTE] Exactly. What is the point of having so many ideas if you have no way of communicating it? You aren't a genius until you can write it down and show people what you think. They will never know what you are thinking, so it won't even matter that you have the idea in n the first place. Without the ability to write/speak your ideas in a concise way for others to understand you are not a genius, or anything close. I believe it was you who brought up Socrates? Had Plato not had a grasp on the language and written down what Socrates was thinking/doing, we would never even know how smart he truly was. But obviously he had a grasp, even if it was a small one, on the language so as to share his ideas with Plato, who in turn used his grasp of the language to record them. Everything falls back to your language. [QUOTE]That?s why college admissions and standardized tests can be ********. I?ve got a real life example: my dad. My dad worked in a factory for a couple years because he didn?t do so well in high school. He hated his high school. He was so ill prepared for college that he didn?t bother applying. Today my dad?s an Orthopedic Surgeon. He?s had over a decade of high-quality schooling. Why? Did he suddenly become intelligent within those two years? No, but he did grow up. He did realize his potential. That potential IS intelligence. No amount of doctorates is going to prove to me that you are so much more intelligent than any factory worker. It?s all about application of one?s intelligence that matters. Now? I?m not saying that ANYONE can become a genius or surgeon. I?m just saying their possibilities aren?t limited to their current professions.[/QUOTE] So then everyone is intelligent? I don't find that to be the case. Why didn't he do well in high school? Again, he went back to school so he could better his life. The fact that he went back doesn't make him any more/less intelligent than say my father. If he didn't have a grasp on the language, he wouldn't be able to pass the classes. You have to write/speak in order to pass classes. He has to understand what the terms mean being used in his profession. How does he learn them? By understanding his English. [QUOTE]Consider this. you get the nuclear physicist and factory worker on a show of jeopardy and the three categories are ?Beer-induced slang, equipment euphemisms,? and ?specifics of the mill-press?; what does that tell anyone about their intelligence?[/QUOTE] How do you find out what those things mean? You understand your language and are able to define what they are. You can define them, and are then able to identify which machine/whatever they are by what you have read and been taught. A physicist will know things such as nuclear fission and fusion. Again, he knows this because he understands his language and his able to identify the differences between them both. Ultimately they both come back down to your language, just different "sections" of their language, their professions terms if you get what I mean? No matter how you look at it, everything comes back down to having a grasp on your language, even outside of these boards. Language is used in EVERYTHING. Without an understanding of the specific terms in you profession how can you possible work there? You need to know what it is your are looking and how and how it works. How do you find out? You read manuals, experiments, etc. After reading these things you can then go and look to see if what you are looking at follows what you just read. Without an understanding of your language you won't know what the heck is going on, what the thing is, etc. It all comes down to language. You can have intelligence in different "strong points." But it all comes down to if you understand your language.

Which brings me back to my entire basis for my posts. Had he been clear and concise in the beginning, this problem would never have arisen. Had he had a firmer grasp on the language, he would have been able to present his views to us in an easy to read and understand fashion. I am not trying to sound rude, but from the way I look at that, he isn't intelligent in this sense. He may have purposefully worded it that way or he may not have. But from the way he worded it, I figure he doesn't have as strong a grasp on the language that would allow others to understand his posts. Which means he isn't as intelligent as lets say you Siren who was able to understand what he meant, obviously because of your higher amount of knowledge concerning this subject. Had he been clear in the first place, this would have never been misunderstood. [QUOTE]DISCLAIMER: If you find my post incoherent, here is an explanation: I usually score high in Spatial Intelligence but am a dunce in Verbal Intelligence. I find making fake blood from potassium thiocyanide or constructing auxiliary views of 3-dimensional objects easier than (what you consider as) the simple task of placing commas.[/QUOTE] Adding a period is a hard task nowadays? Coming from someone who may have been unfortunate to get a decent education I can understand, but from someone who knows lots about chemistry (I'm assuming you are talking about it, I did horrible in that class)? How do you get others to repeat your work? How can you read what others have written to perform your own tasks? It all comes back to the language skills one has to make it possible for one to repeat an experiment. I never said that there weren't other forms of intelligence. But from the way I see it, it all boils down to your language. Without a grasp on it strong enough to get you through what you need, you really can't do anything. How can one expected to be a chemist if they don't write down their procedure in a clear and concise manner? [QUOTE]I would say, in that context, that understanding and knowledge are not necessarily the same thing. But I do agree that the ability to seek knowledge is more important than the ability to simply hold or retain knowledge (which is really what my post is about, in a longwinded fashion).[/QUOTE] Isn't an understanding of the English language basically that though? Without a grip on that, all that you learn is pointless to you. You will have no need for it since you won't understand it. The English/whatever language makes it possible for one to be intelligent. Without it you just have a jumbled pile of facts. When you can understand what it means by using whichever language you speak/prefer you can move onto other things. I am still amazed with what eternity said. My physics and chemistry teachers have pounded into your brains to be good in English so as to allow others to read and understand our procedure, not having to read between the lines as Siren said. I thought that one would be able to place commas or periods in a physics/chemistry class. It is essential. Without them you have no clue what to actually do. It could say put two grams of whatever into the beaker stirring with the water mixture while adding grams of another thing. Now I don't know about you, but a step in a procedure like that would freak me out. I would have no clue what to do. Had it read "put two grams into the beaker, stirring it in the water mixture. Then add another two grams of whatever." That would be a clear and concise procedure. That I could follow the other way I could not. Your language is an essential part to being intelligent. In AP US History last year my teacher was "up in our grill" about writing essays that will answer the question, and not just regurgitate what we know. Had we not known the language it would be a mess of just thoughts, run-on sentences, and fragments. Of course that would be the case only if we could actually read the language. How is one able to get a decent job without a grasp of their language? They will have to create a resume, talk to customers and everything that a language is needed for. How can you be intelligent in any way without a grasp of your language? Everything requires language.

[QUOTE]Explaining emotion in just words isn't hard. It's only daunting to those inexperienced writers/readers.[/QUOTE] Which is what most people are. I never said it was impossible, just that it was hard. There are a lot of inexperienced writers/readers out there. The same goes for experienced as well. Though many people on forums are just your "average" writer who learns and uses only what they learn in basic English class. I know I am not among the experienced class of writers I agree with Sciros. The comparison wasn't made in his post. Siren, your reading between the lines part is what gets me. Had he been clear enough in the first place, we wouldn't have had to read between the lines. Which is what I have been saying. Be clear to begin with by having a firm grasp on ones language to get his/her point across without someone misinterpreting it. Since all this has been said, you have to realize that he is going to come back into the post saying that what Siren/Drix brought up is what he actually meant.

But again, in my mind he wasn't clear enough to get his post out to everyone. Others and myself failed to see that. Which means he could have been a little bit clearer about what he was talking about. Which is what I have been heading towards with my posts. [QUOTE]If a person does not have a perfect grasp on what is commonly recognized as necessary to present thoughts and ideas, does that make that person or that person's posts unintelligent? I think that, if anything, it makes them more intelligent.[/QUOTE] Without the means to express ones intelligence, language, how are we to know you are intelligent? Language is in essence all that it boils down to. Without knowing what something means, or how to use a certain word, others won't be able to tell that you are intelligent. That it what my whole argument over the language was for. Without it you aren't able to show your intelligence to others. He was saying that it basically has to relevance at all. If he didn't mean that, he obviously wasn't clear enough in presenting his ideas. Two of you that are able to get it, doesn't mean he was clear enough for the whole. This is exactly as I was getting at. Besides, he was talking about posts.[b]does that make that person or that person's posts unintelligent?[/b] Posts are writing. It is hard to explain emotion in just words. So when one says posts, I think about reading and writing. Not the language of mathematics. Now that I look back on it, I myself may have not been clear enough. I readily admitted to not being perfect in my language skills, but I have a decent grasp on it. My views may have possibly not been clear enough though. The sentence talking about posts is what leads my entire argument. If you don't have a grasp on the language you are writing/speaking, there is no way for someone sitting on a computer in his/her room to tell if one is intelligent or not. If you mispell words that are very easy to spell, or grammatical mistakes that are obvious such as periods, we tend to believe this person isn't intelligent.

My attacks on his language are due to his post in saying that language isn't needed to be intelligent. My entire argument is based on that. He never said anything about any other languages. Read his post. He certainly wasn't talking about the language of mathematics. He was talking about the English/whatever language his friends speak due to his words of being able to express themselves, using periods, grammar, etc. [QUOTE]How you manipulate your courses knowledge to suit your needs? Intelligence is understanding? Creativity? I would argue that these are products of intelligence. What?s with the wartime comment? Are you inferring that people suddenly get stupid when it comes to conflict?[/QUOTE] Without a grasp of whatever language one speaks, you cannot do that. That is the point I was trying to make. Again, he said that language isn't needed to be intelligent. Going on that, you wouldn't be able to do anything. Where on Earth did you get that I was saying we get stupid in times of conflict? I was saying that intelligence is used in wartime. Without a grasp of the language to begin with, you won?t be able to read a map. You won?t be able to understand what geographical terms mean. Things like that. You dig? That doesn?t mean we are stupid. But it means that without those qualities of being able to understand your language you can?t do that. It was just an example. I could have said anything in its place, it was just the first thing that popped into my head. If you can't read, you can't do math problems. How will you know how 2 is spelled? Or pronounced? How will you know how to describe your findings to future generations? You have to have a grasp on your language to do anything. [QUOTE]A nuclear physicist isn?t any more intelligent than a factory worker as far as I?m concerned. One isn?t born a PhD, but one is born smart.[/QUOTE] You put a physicist up to a factory worker, which is smarter? Throughout all the years of seeking knowledge through reading and practicing, they have become intelligent. Without the ability to understand the language, neither of them would be where they are. In a lot of cases, why does one become a factory work? Because they didn't do well i n school perhaps? Possibly because they didn't grasp their language to pass English/language class. Or possibly they failed to pass a mathematics class because of the word problems? The given number problems aren't what you see in real life. You see things you have to read and language is needed for that. [QUOTE]I don?t think so Zeta. You spent a paragraph describing intelligence as being useless if no one can understand the ideas you present, and then you abase Adahn for your own misunderstandings? I didn?t have any trouble understanding what he was trying to say; I didn?t need to nitpick.[/QUOTE] I said it is useless if one doesn?t know have a grasp on their language. Why did I misunderstand his topic? Because he wasn't clear enough for me. He failed to lay out his views in a concise manner. I am not trying to say he is stupid or anything, because he isn't. He came up with a good topic, but could have been clearer. Had he said what Siren said he believes he is talking about from the get go, I wouldn't have even shown my face in here. From what I was able to understand from his post, was that he was talking about the language that you speak and write to communicate with others, in mediums such as books, posts, etc. He never even once mentioned any other type of language. How was I to know he even had an inkling that there are other languages unless he was clear enough, which he wasn't. [QUOTE]Language isn?t a means to measure one?s intelligence, but his means to communicate it. That?s what I gathered. His first post seemed clear enough to me.. gosh? maybe he should dumb it down a little next time.[/QUOTE] If you are fully aware, or have a nice, firm grasp on the knowledge how can you communicate with people? You have to understand it to use it. Again my entire series of posts here is based on what he presented. Which was that language (he even said earlier it concerned things such as periods, grammatical errors, etc.) is what he was talking about. Obviously if two people out of the whole (not including the poster) were able to grasp what he meant, means that it wasn't clear enough. He never even [i]mentions[/i] any other type of language. He was talking about the English/whatever language you speak type of language, clearly given by his talking about periods, grammatical things, etc.

He didn't make that clear enough in his post then. Which in essence comes back to my point. He didn't explain himself well enough so that others and myself can fully understand what he was trying to say. But my replies stick by what I was able to grasp from what I could understand in his post. But again, keep in mind, that that is just a theory. There may be supporting evidence, but until it is a proven fact it isn't 100% true. I am not saying that it isn't true, but I am also saying that we can't take it as being 100% true. If he had been much clearer in his post, I would have been able to see more than what I was seeing. From what he said I was able to ascertain that he was saying that you don't have to have a grasp on a language to be intelligent. How hard is it to add a period or a comma? He then said that things people say may have a deeper meaning to what they say, but also have poor grammatical skills. But without an understanding of the language, one cannot write "deeply", which then means someone reading it cannot understand it.

On the contrary, I am answering your question, which I am entitled to do. And I suggest you re-read my posts. I never said one needs a perfect grasp on their language. But again, look at it from a common sense view. If you have sentences with spelling mistakes galore, no periods at all, it is obvious you do not have a grasp on the language. Periods and spelling are some of the most common things you should be able to get right. How often to teens use the long, scientific words outside of research paper? I know I for one won't write out a word that is eleven letters long when another word that means the same thing is only five. You seem to be missing my points. Maybe I am unintelligent. Or maybe it is the other way around. Maybe you do not have a grasp on the English language. To get to this deeper meaning thing of yours, you have to first understand what you are saying/reading. Without that ability, there is no deeper meaning. And to understand it, you have to have a grasp on the language. Please, I am not being rude to you. I don't appreciate you being rude to me. You asked a question, I am giving you my views. I have every right to.

Yes. And answer me this. Without a grasp of their language, would they have a clue in what they were doing? No they would not. So yes, you do need to have a good grasp on your language. Which as I get from your posts, you are saying is irrelevant. If I went to a job interview and handed in a resume with spelling mistakes galore and crap such as "yo dude, what up? Dis is 1337." Do you think they would higher me at all? Let alone take another look at the resume? Now if you handed in a resume with clear, concise statements, words that are not used in everyplace such as "said" etc. you have a much higher chance of getting the job.

Intelligence is completely different from what you are saying it is. Intelligence is how you use what you learn. How you manipulate your courses knowledge to suit your needs. It is how well you can understand others, create things to better man kind. Heck, intelligence is even in war time. You have to be intelligent to create a good plan, there is nothing deep about that, heh. Creativeness does come into play there yes, but it is ulimately knowing the geography of the place, weather, etc.. All those things is knowledge which you have come across in your life, which is in turn intelligence. Which you wouldn't understand any of it if you didn't have a grasp on your language. Intelligence is the result of the knowledge that you seek out. Again I repeat, with a grasp on the language, you cannot be intelligent. It is a given fact. If someone can't understand you, how can what you are saying be deep? Without a grasp of the language to convey to the reader or whomever, they can't see if what you are saying is deep. I do not have that well of grammer. But I have a decent grasp on what I do know to convey my point clearly so that others can read and understand it. If I didn't have the grasp that I do have, everyone here would see me as unintelligent. Why? Because they can't understand me. How do you make them understand you? Get a grasp on the language. When you have that you are intelligent. The grasp of your language leads you to so many other possibilites where your "deeper" meaning has no significance. Let me ask you this. Is a nuclear physicist intelligent? They use "big fluffy" words.

Well in my mind, the English language is in itself very important to be intelligent. Just to clarify, when I say English, I a country's native language, just using English because it is what I use. If you do not have a strong grasp, or a decent grasp, on your native language there isn't a way for one to be understood. It won't matter that they went out looking for knowledge, because without a grasp on the language another person cannot help him/her. It is just like going on a trip to a country that doesn't speak your native language. You are there with a "something/something" dictionary to help you translate words. Not only does it get you frustrated, but it gets the other person a little flustered if it goes on long enough. So when you look back on it, all you really need is a grasp on your native language. Without it you can't understand what you are searching for, nor can anyone help you searh for it. [QUOTE]I think that, if anything, it makes them more intelligent. Their desire to know is so great that they will suffer the hardships of being misunderstood or pointed out as less than perfectly literate to get their ideas across for their own benefit, and the benefit of others.[/QUOTE] I don't see that as intelligence. I see that as seeking knowledge, both of which are different in my book at least But they obviously aren't able to reach the knowledge they want. Why can't they? They can't because they won't be able to understand what they are looking at, and no one will be able to help them. Again, it all comes down to having a good and tight grasp on one's native language. Once they have that, they can just fly basically. Now that I look back on my post, I see that my examples are to the extreme of not knowing basically anything of the language. Granted not knowing where to put commas all the time, or when to use a colon or semi colon won't make that much of a difference in your search for knowledge.

I've been around since around version 1, with different names of course. Some oldies have come and gone, some are still here. Topaz was one such member. She came back briefly, but I haven't seen here since. Though, she may be here under another name. Don't know what to say, some people just move on, heh. I myself am not that big of a poster compared to what I was, I moved on as well, just not as far as some. ^_^;;

My most memorable costume was when I dressed up as an astronaught. My mom made it out of a grey jumpsuit type of thing. She made patches and everything! Though the one part that was bad was the big tank things they have on their backs. She completely forgot about that until a few hours before I went out. So she rolled up some posterboard and stapped that to my back, heh. Really fun. I went around pretending I was floating in space, lol. Oh man I have one experience that I look back on and love. Back when I still lived in Wisconsin, I was trick or treating with my best friend Kyle. Him and I would always hang out, always. Kind of funny since we became best of friends because I accidently kicked his tooth out. ^_^;; Anywho. In a court across the street from his house, was a family that really got into the whole Halloween thing. They had decorations on the house, objects in their yard everything. So we decide to go there. At the front door there is a coffin with a skeleton hand sticking out. It says "Open if you dare." Naturally we are scared out of our pants. With much deliberation, we decide against opening. What if some horrible deformed body jumped at us?! Which is in fact what would have happened, the father was in there, heh. So we are walking away quite fast because we were scared, and we pass this big rock in the yard. As we pass it, it suddenly jumps up and screams and chases us. It was the mother as a witch! >_< Man that scared us so much we ran back to his house in record time. When she jumped up, we were just gone. I had never been so scared in my life, nor have I been so scared, lol. :laugh:

I personally, do not believe there is even a group C. Every President has done things that were wrong, so it isn't like any single one is perfect, heh. I really liked the way that Baron put it. The difference between the way I used my internet sources and the way Garelock used his, is the fact that you can open any history textbook/biography and see the points that I brought up. His were just news articles. Granted, in the future these things will definately be put into history books, but more will be done about them. They will find exactly where all their intelligence faults occured, and ways that they could and should have seen past them. I agree with Chibi on a few points. He did a very good job in Afghanistan, and I completely agree with her saying that it is hard to go through with plans when people are opposed to it. That makes complete sense. I should have brought that in sooner, but was too preoccupied. I really liked that, good job. [QUOTE]Now onto paragraph two. You know although I really like the war on Iraq, because in my mind no one else would've taken the measures to stop Suddam, I don't think he lied to us. As it has been said in this thread even Clinton stated there were WMD's in Iraq. That was the information we had at the time, granted it was bad information, it was the info we had on the time. I respect Bush on the fact that he acted on the information that he had. Many people call this idiotic, but the simple fact is most people don't do that now, and in a world of genocide and terrorism I think thats important.[/QUOTE] Exactly what I was saying, I am glad to see that some people can atcually understand what I am talking about. Bush is overall, the true lesser of the two evils. He has been C-in-C for four years. He at least has some clue as to what comes with this position, moreso than Kerry. Imagine if Roosevelt had lost his re-elections, and some other President was running the country. Things would change, possible for the worse, possible for the better. This is the same thing going on here. Change something out in the middle, and it will only go in a different direction than planned. Rather stay on a straight path, and know exactly what we are trying to do, to the best of our ability.

[B]?Now it appears that premise was wrong,? the newspaper declares. ?We cannot in hindsight blame the administration for its original conclusions. They were based on the best intelligence available.?[/B] That is a part of the article that you just posted. That sounds vaguely familiar to something. Could it be something that I had said in the previous post? I think so. ;) It doesn't matter how it was made, it was still the best intelligence available, which is exactly what I said. You seem to be concuring with my points without you realizing it. The intelligence was faulty yes, which is what I have been saying. And which you just supported. Yes you idiot. Pardon my language. He tried his best, failed, and then did nothing. NOTHING. He obviousley didn't try hard enough. Had he done all that you make him out to do, he would have stopped the war before it even started. When you fail on something that grand of a scale, you do not give up entirely. Which is what Buchanan did. How many battles did the Union get their butts whooped in at the start of the war? Did Lincoln give up? No. He fought on, something which Buchanan should have done and didn't. You are missing my point, don't bother. [b]Well, lets look at it this way. Bush may not have gassed innocent people but he DID vote to reinstate the gas chamber for criminals. What's the difference? You kill an innocent person, you kill a criminal, there's no difference because either wau you're taking a life.[/b] Criminals who themselves too a life as well eh? They took a life, why not do it back. It is called the death penalty, which is allowed under the Constitution, regarding of course they follow certain rules. Go back and re-write the Constitution while you are at. It serves no purpose. Gassing innocent civilians is not allowed, but the case of a criminal is quite different. [b]Even Clinton had proof that Saddam had the weapons and afterwards, all Bush had to do was use Clinton's clear evidence and justify the war[/b] So what, He DOES in fact have weapons? Or doesn't he? You said earlier he didn't, but the President before Bush knew he had them? And according to your article, it was said they were destroyed in 1991. But Clinton was Presidnet after 1991, so he did in fact have them afterwards? What is the point in bring that point up, with your article as well. They only cancle each other out. Think before you post. [b]Hmm...JFC...I wonder who said that. I got ONE spelling mistake when you have millions? A guy that read your posts told me that you were an idiot not only because your facts were so wrong that it made him laugh but you can't spell worth a good damn yet you want to argue with someone. There were no more people the American people could harm? OMG! MAN! Somebody get this guy a clue! The fact is that America has harmed person after innocent person regardless of what your feeble mind can attempt to justify! He thinks America hasn't harmed innocent people! Hold on, let me get a quote since you like to use websites as references...[/b] Again you only prove your inability to read. I said what other innocents could we harm in America, that would lead to a response from Osama? Name one. I don't deny we did things outside of America, but we haven't on the homefront. Name one time when we went into lets say Chinatown, and blew up a bomb. There was no on in the US that we could hurt that would cause a response from Osama. If we pull out, there will be no chance for the Iraqi's to mantain control. With the Americans helping them get on the right steps to being able to protect themselves, a terrorist won't be able to just walk up like you said. Be reasonable. Without help, they are nothing at this point in time. They need some sense of order, wether it be small or large. And right now it is small, I am not afraid to admit that. But it is keeping another Saddam from walking up and talking over. And when they have a stable government and are able to protect themselves, it won't be as easy as walking up and taking over. [b]What do you call Clinton bombing the weapons factories in Iraq? What do you call George Bush, Sr.? The more you type, the more I realize that you don't know a single thing about the issue that we're debating.[/b] Look at it again. Did those actions accomplish anything? Saddam was still in power after the Gulf War. Still in power after Clinton's bombings. Is he in power anymore? No. Their actions did nothing. [b]I personally see a reason to continue this argument because you're just plain out humourous. You think people agree with you? Naw, they'll lie about it but deep down inside they are putting a dunce cap on your head. If anyone has gone off topic it has been you. If anyone hasn't been reading, it has been you. If you read what YOU wrote every now and then you wouldn't make as many spelling errors as you make nor would you look as stupid as you do. On a countless amount of occassions I've proven you to be wrong over and over again. You can't debate with me because you're not even on the same intellectual level as I am; you're a mere child compared to me.[/b] I never said I was a great speller. ;) And personally, spelling isn't a big deal to me. I have no reason to spell right for you. If you would read what you typed, you would see that you contradict yourself many times as pointed above, and have taken my comments out of context. You have read it, and immediatly warped it to fit your needs, when it was not meant to be taken in that way. You said I compared JFK to Bush, when if you will go back and read, will see that is not true. And when I bring up that fact, and say what I really meant, you are at a loss as to why he was brought up in the first place, lol. I don't need people to agree with me. If they agree with me, good for them, if they don't again, good for them. It doesn't bother me in the slightest if they think I am humerous, because to be honest, I have gotten many IMs saying that you yourself are funny and stupid as well. *shrug* It's a message board. No big deal. This is just a debate, in which I am participating in. If I lose, so be it. If I win, so be it. You haven't shown me anything to imply that you have won yet, so it will continue. But again, if you wan't this to continue, I would suggest we take it up in PMs. With the way we are, I don't know if this will remain open for like. And I would very much like to see who everyone else is voting for. Good topic, shouldn't be closed for our quarrel.

[QUOTE]I don't know where you got that information but I'd advise you to curse them out as soon as possible That's largely incorrect. A lot of the policies President Buchanan put into place are the same ones that our current president doesn't like. I could imagine that he'd try to make Buchanan look bad by getting his webmasters to post lies on the internet. I'm laughing at the fact that someone actually got some information off the internet and calls it credible. There's one thing the internet is known for and that's for sending electronic lies. Buchanan was a war monger just like our current president seems to be and he would not be inactive in any sense so just trust me on that. South Carolina was the reason why there was even a Civil War but even before then a war was evident as far as Buchanan was concerned, plus the fact that he even tried to avoid it but couldn't. He started the war, not recognizable by the nation in general but mostly the victory was given largely in part to Lincoln which is crazy.[/QUOTE] Right here is a quote from the Encarta encyclopedia. [i]As the states of the Deep South seceded, Buchanan found himself at a loss to stop them. He was firmly convinced that any violence toward the South would only precipitate war. A policy of compromise, he believed, would see the nation through the secession crisis. [b]So determined was he that his administration not risk a civil war by committing an overt act that he did nothing[/b]. His policy of inaction toward the seceded states averted war for the remainder of his administration, giving various compromise efforts a chance to develop[/i] Seeing as how you don't even have the ability to reread your own postsI am going to explain to you and yourfriends so called history major dad means. This is the Encarta Encyclopedia. It is a well respected encyclopedia, that is a very intelligent composition of all things in this world. It has an online version, and a set of books. That is exactly what the other side said that I posted. Are we saying the Encyclopedia's are wrong? How many times have they been re-written. Please, think things through. It is not me who is wrong. It is you and your friend's father. I have no clue where he got his education, but he should go back and demand his money back.You have shown you don't even have the ability to actually read what is being said, so I hope you have the ability to actually think. [QUOTE]What country am I speaking up for? Maybe it's YOU who should learn how to read buddy, so far, not only are you making a million and one spelling mistakes, you're making a million and one factual mistakes. Johnson? Who the hell are you talking about? Lyndon Johnson? I?m talking about JFC! HOW ABOUT YOU LEARN HOW TO READ?! Moore is a guy who's honest, unlike Bush and for that matter, Kerry included. Yeah, I'm criticizing Kerry a little too. Not once did I say Kerry was a good person, to be honest, I think Kerry's an idiot but I'd rather vote for an idiot or a nobody like Nader before I'd ever vote for Bush. He will be missed by quite a few? I don't know what America you're talking about. Maybe Latin America because Bush allows outsourcing to take place so their poor citizens can take American jobs and make the job market even worse than before. Again, mind the poll I took at my college campus alone of the people who don't like Bush whatsoever; doesn't sound like a person that would be missed. What do you think? Osama?s relatives being moved out?no, what Michael is saying is that why didn?t Bush move all the OTHER innocent people out of the way before he decided to go on a bombing spree? You know, still, people haven?t addressed the fact that we?ve managed to collectively kill more people than what Saddam has killed between George Bush Jr. and George Bush Sr. The American people being angry?! The American people are ALWAYS angry; it?s the American way! We?ve got a history of attacking and trying to kill every person in sight just because they cross us and then, we make innocent people suffer; take Pearl Harbor and 9/11 for example. Know how many innocent people had to suffer because of what their leaders decided to do? And yet, some Americans still can justify that? Know how many babies were killed? Pregnant mothers? Fathers? Brothers? Sisters? Do you know just how many people died? NOPE! No one actually does, people can only guess because the death toll is so high that it?s practically uncountable. Bush wanted to deter attacks?! RIIIGHT! And a war should REALLY make the terrorists stop attacking us. Man, you?re just making me roll on the floor and I?ll put it on a web cam if you don?t believe me?[/QUOTE] Please don't lecture me on my spelling when you can't even get a abbreviated 3 letter name right. JFC? Has it suddenly become John F. Chicken? What other innocent people had to be movied out of the way? There were no other people that the American people could harm that would cause a massive retaliation from Osama. The only other people i n the country were the Americans. What, should we have moved them all to Canada? Palease. Again,think before you speak. I brought up Johnson because you failed to understand what I was originally talking about. You said I was comparing JFK and Bush when I wasn't. [b]How dare you compare George "The Madman" Bush Jr. to John F. Kennedy! JFK was one of the greatest American presidents of all time![/b] That was posted by you. You didn't understand what I was taking about. I wasn't going to give you the false pleasure of thinking you were right in your argument there when you didn't even read my post. Let alone, you didn't go back and re-read your own post to see why I brought up Johnson. [QUOTE]Hitler? The only difference between Bush and Hitler is that one is a RECOGNIZED madman. In the end, Hitler didn?t get taken care of, Hitler did the job himself. Read up on your history junior, maybe you could learn something. If Hitler had only thought out his strategies and was smart for a change, well, the axis powers would?ve beaten out their opponents. That just goes to show you that one day, America is going to write a check that our butts can?t cash and then, just like any other kingdom, America shall fall; even Rome the Great did. Bush invaded a country purely for its oil. Why the hell do you think we invaded Iraq? Do you think it was for the weapons of mass destruction?! HA HA HA! Bush admitted that no weapons of mass destruction had been found in the debate and I can prove that because I have that baby taped. So you mean to tell me, we spent over 100 billion dollars, lost hundreds of good soldiers and special forces members, artillery vehicles and not to mention the innocent bystander deaths all because we got our facts mixed up? Really, isn?t America great?[/QUOTE] How is Hitler not a recognized madman? How do you consider Bush a recognized madman? Does Bush go around rounding people up into camps and then gassing them? Does he perform experiments on them while they are living? Hitler is the madman. As I have stated above, you need to read up on your history, not I. Of course America will fall. It is a known fact. All great empires fall. I have accepted this. Hitler was quite a smart man. He had one blunder that caused him the war. Had that not occured, the war definately wouldn't have turned out the way it is. He knocked out France in less than a month. Took over all off Europe. Not since the days of Napolean has that been accomplished. Bush acted on the intelligence he had at the time. I am willing to admit that it wasn't the best of intelligence. But hey, if you have something in front of you that says some country has nuclear weapons, or that some country is going to bomb you, you are going to act on it. Think logically here. He made his decisions based on what was presented to him at the time. He had no idea of knowing if it was false or true. He made the decision that any President would do. You have stuff in front of you saying you are threatened, you are going to do something about it. [QUOTE]You want to talk about a haven for terrorists. No one has even disputed the fact that we have terrorists right here in America. I?m more afraid of the KKK than I am of Al Queda. Before we worry about terrorists in other countries, we need to worry about these crazy dudes we got right here. All the advanced helicopters and military operatives and it took a TRUCK DRIVER whom, career wise, isn?t worth more than 10 thousand dollars a year, to find the DC snipers. That tells you something. We need to worry about our homeland security before worrying about any other situation in other countries.[/QUOTE] I never said that there were no terrorists here. I agree with you, I am worried about them quite a deal. But did they crash a plane into a building? Two planes? Three planes? The simple answer is no. The terrrorists from the outside world cause a far greater risk than those on the homefront. Now before you go opening you mouth with words that won't do you any good, I am not saying we shouldn't do something about them. Things should be done about them. But you have to remember, certain things have to be taken into priority. Allow another attack on the scale of 9/11 compared to a much smaller rally or just a beating? I know it sounds harsh but it is the reality. [QUOTE]Simple, GET US THE HELL OUT OF THERE! It?s obvious that the Iraqi people don?t want us there if they are the main ones trying to put up a resistance against us! How would you like it if someone didn?t like the way America did business and invaded the country, then wouldn?t leave? What America does to so many other countries we wouldn?t want done to us. We?ve killed mothers, daughters, sons, mothers and all kinds of innocent people, destroyed homes and lives and let somebody do the same to America, boy, we?ll get SO upset. 9/11 was a tragedy, no doubt about it but it kills me how some people seem to think that America didn?t have it coming. Why SHOULDN?T that happen to us? Who are we to avoid disaster? It was BUT for the Grace of God that America didn?t end up taken over a long time ago. Then people have the nerve to say, ?God Bless America.? GOD HAS BEEN BLESSING AMERICA! America is the richest and most powerful country in the history of countries PERIOD! Even Rome! And Babylonia doesn?t have a darn thing on us! How much more blessing does God have to do? Geez, those crazy loonies gonna work the poor guy overtime?[/QUOTE] Again, learn to read. What happens if we just get out of there? Another Saddam will come to power, and then the war will truly have been for nothing. We are trying to keep order to the BEST OF OUR ABILITY. We aren't staying there for the heck of it, again, read my posts. We are there to try to reestablish a sense of order that will be missing if we pull out before that occurs. [QUOTE]Hell, would YOU let America into your country given the reputation America has?! I mean, soldiers abusing people and sexually humiliating them, raping kids, killing people for amusement, the inspectors being biased against certain races of people and even a history of presidents who are nut cases; not all but some are definitely up there in the nut house category. I?m not blaming Bush for the inspections and trying to ACT. What I am blaming Bush for, however, is this stupid war. This war has done nothing but cost American and Iraqi lives, homes, hell, property damage in general and not to mention the American view by the other countries in the world; including the allies. It just wasn?t worth it to me. Again, if he didn?t have nuclear arms then why the hell did we invade Iraq? Face it, Bush lied. He said and yes, I quote, he DID say that there was confirmation on weapons. Then he comes back in the debate and denies that the weapons were even found?hmm?sounds like a ?flip flopper? to you?[/QUOTE] We invaded them because at the time, we believe they did. If a CIA document comes to your desk and says they have them, you will believe they do at that moment. Given the past of the CIA, they had no reason to think that it was wrong. They had no way of knowing. It is like nowadays. We act on what we are given because it is the only opprotunity at the time. [QUOTE]Keep order? Now I know you?re mixed up and confused. If you call that CHAOS in Iraq order then I?d hate to see what you?d consider disorderly. We?ve done nothing but create more chaos than ever before. Instead of just the people hating Saddam, now the people hate Saddam AND the US. I?m not saying we should just pull out, what I?m saying is that we shouldn?t have even sent troops over there to begin with because it just wasn?t the right time. We should?ve gotten more ally support before taking on such a task. Had we had ally support and later, we still would?ve had a war but the fact of the matter is not only would we look better to our allies but with the combined support, we would?ve defeated the resistance in Iraq very easily. We should leave the country alone because that?s what Bush said we were going to do once Saddam was over thrown. He said he?d let the Iraqis take over, well, Saddam is gone, there are NO WEAPONS, why the hell are we staying? We?ve done what we came to do, now, it?s time to get out! Bush SPECIFICALLY made that promise! He?d only come to get Saddam and stop him then bring him to justice and then the American troops would indeed pull out. Or at least that?s what my bro in Iraq told me; that was a long time ago, I don?t really get to talk to him a lot.[/QUOTE] Again I tell you to read my post. I said they are trying to keep order to their best of their ability. And I repeat again, what happens if we just up and leave? No order will be that AT ALL. We are at least trying to give some sense of order, without that little amount we can gtive them, many things will change. Read what I said, instead of just opening your mouth and retorting at the first words you read. [QUOTE]I hope you don?t use your spelling skills on that resume buddy, you definitely won?t get that job. I?m sorry, I mean, I know my grammar isn?t exactly golden but at least I can spell the majority of my words correctly. Please man, if you?re going to argue with me, learn how to spell first; in short, a spell checker wouldn?t kill you. I?m serious, I don?t know what the heck you?re talking about half the time because I can?t read however you spelled a certain word. My take on what you just said is that you?re wrong; it totally depends on the job. Sometimes, you don?t even need a resume to get a job. Kind of like Bush, he didn?t need a thing to become Governor of Texas; daddy helped him get into office.[/QUOTE] Besides my less than perfect grammer, could you point to the mass amounts of spelling mistakes? I am not going to take grammer lessons from someone who can't spell JFK right. [QUOTE]I won?t deny that Kerry and Edwards had the chance to put their input on things but lets look at something though. The fact of the matter is there?s no point in voting when you know your vote won?t count. This isn?t like voting for the president where you won?t even know if your vote was the deciding factor to who won or who loss. But as for the records that my father was so kind to look up, most times, the house had already made a majority vote on everything Bush and Cheney were talking about. Why the hell vote when the outcome was already certain?! It?s like voting in Florida last year in the presidential debate; it?s a waste of your time.[/QUOTE] What the heck? That is like saying you are trapped in a cave and know you won't get out and don't even try to get out. Hell that can be put into any situation. You are surrounded by enemy troops with guns point at you and you know you won't survive. But yet you still try to fight you way out. That is a stupid train of thought. [QUOTE]Again, it?s not the fact that Kerry voted for a war, it?s just the fact of HOW the war was conducted that counts. At the time, America was agreeing with the UN and the US Congress in general but when Bush starts trying to invade everyone and their grandma, THEN AND ONLY THEN did a lot of people turn against them. You want people who stable? Don?t vote for Bush. How the hell do you say that you?re against abortion because you?re taking a life and yet in the same breathe you?ll talk about going to war?! You?re either against death or for death, take your pick George. Doesn?t sound like a very stable person to me. Sorry, I find it hard to believe someone who was strung out on drugs in the past; it?s a pet peeve I have.[/QUOTE] That is a moot point. He could be completely against abortion. He could make hundreds of laws to outlaw it. But when a war has to come for some reason, you will be killing. You aren't for death or against it. It is something that has to be done. You can still be "against" it and go to war, because you have to. [QUOTE]IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO DID WHAT, WHY THEY DID WHAT OR TO WHAT DEGREE THEY DID IT, IF YOU?RE THE PRESIDENT, YOU FIX IT![/QUOTE] Which is exactly what he is doing. Past Presidents didn't do anything about Iraq or the terrorist problems, so now he [i]is[/i] doing something about it. I personally see no reason to continue this argument. To me you are just an angry man who feels he has to get his words out without even thinking. Countless times you have read my posts and have gone completely off the topic I was talking about. There is a difference between reading, and just seeing words. You have shown me nothing to make me think you know what you are talking about. On countless occasions I have shown you to be wrong about something because you either didn't read it, or you yourself have false information. If you wish to continue this, we should do it over PM and not turn this into a personal vendetta.

[QUOTE]Riiight...well, lets look at John F. Kennedy. Lets look at one fact; people MISSED HIM. If Bush died, I don't think many would care and we all know the majority of America would actually applaud his death; most of America doesn't like Bush anyways. The polls seem to favor Kerry. I don't care who even the polls are, if a guy who is only a senator and isn't the president, gets criticized left and right somehow manages to even get CLOSE to winning the majority of popularity votes, well, he deserves some credit. That's besides the point though, Bush, well, I really hate to say this but it's true; him dieing wouldn't be surprising. He managed to piss off lots of countries whom of which could really kick our butts in a war. If he was assassinated tomorrow, I wouldn't be shocked whatsoever. How dare you compare George "The Madman" Bush Jr. to John F. Kennedy! JFK was one of the greatest American presidents of all time! The reason why America was in such a crisis because of his death is because George couldn't be HALF the president JFK was! Michael Moore? No, I respect the guy because he says what's on his mind instead of hiding crap; at least he's honest, unlike most people replying to this thread.[/QUOTE] PALEASE! You are speaking for the country now eh? Even if people won't miss him, he will be missed by quite a few, considering how large the country is. I am not comparing them, please read again. I am saying we did the same thing with Bush, that we did with Johnson. Rather than have the country in turmoil, we took measures to protect him. I am in no way comparing them, I am comparing Bush and Johnson. Please learn to read. Micheal Moore eh. He critisizes the fact that Bush allowed planes to take Osams relatives out of the country? Could he possibly have done that because the American people were angry, and could possibly have murdered them? What would Osama have done then, knowing his relatives were murdered? I can tell you one thing, he wouldn't lounge back and put his feet up. Bush let them go, so as to deter anymore attacks at the time. Again, I repeat, had they been killed, Osama would have acted again. [QUOTE]Bush lost, flat out LOST. Polls and opinions of the majority generally don't lie. Kerry kicked Bush's butt in BOTH those debates. Face it, Bush lost fair and square. The fact that Kerry managed to outsmart Bush doesn't make him a better candidate, it's the morals I'm looking at. You ever wonder WHY Kerry keeps on saying that Bush could've done something about 9/11? Well, lets look at the average amount of aliens that come into this country yearly. Probably over 500 thousand yearly. Now, ever notice how you see Mexican people slowly taking over construction companies, restaurants and other such businesses? Soon, the Mexicans will be the majority and not the minority. I'm not being racist but I'm being careful. The terrorists that carried out the horrible deeds of 9/11 DID NOT SNEAK into America. WE LET THEM IN! That IS Bush's fault. It's his fault that he didn't do something about that. I mean, how hard is it to tell the US Immigrations services to shape up or ship out? He does the same thing to Saddam so why should they be any different? He wants to criticize Kerry? Well, lets criticize him letting Cubans into the country because he claims they're an "oppressed people." Well, when a party of 10 Haitians tried to cross over onto American soil you?d think Bush?s immigration policies would let them into the country since he lets Laura?s Mexican relatives into the country any day of the week. Nope, they got sent right back and yet, the Haitians are just as much of an oppressed people as the Cubans are. I wonder why they got sent back, maybe because their skin is a little darker than some others? I don?t know but that?s an issue no one ever seems to bring up. You say Bush is making sure that the drugs are being checked? HA HA HA! RIIIIGHT! And I suppose Canada knows how to make quality drugs? I mean, lets be honest, the place is like Amsterdam; nothing is done about people smoking ?weed? in broad daylight. Trust me, I just came from the place last month and people are as high as kites over there. I wouldn?t trust Canadian drugs if my very life depended on it?And I suppose Bush checks all the drugs does he? I wonder how illegal drugs manage to get into America everyday of the week. Maybe they somehow POOF through the border.[/QUOTE] Who is to say that they didn't come in during a past Presidency? Why does the blame land on Bush. Many immigrants came in under other Presidencies, why do they get no blame? Why you ask? Because it is what I have been saying. The problems of a Presidency and direction consequences of past Presidencie's. Please, Please take that into account. It is foolish to think that one Presidency is to blame for what is going on. It is a intricate line of events that started in a different one, and just continue to build up. [QUOTE]Riiight?you know, the more I read this, the more I laugh. Again, I want to bring across the point of Bush being the most hypocritical president in the United States? history. How the hell do you criticize Saddam for having weapons like that when America has more nukes than Russia?! Again, I?d trust Saddam with nukes before I?d trust America with nukes. Who has a bigger track record with blowing up whole cities with bombs? America or Iraq? We?ve bombed just about everyone I could think of with the exception of a few countries and that?s only because they?d beat us down if we tried to bomb them. We?ve fought and bombed just about every Asian country, we?ve bombed most of Europe and I mean the list just goes on and on and on and on and on. I shall ask you once more, who would you trust? America? A place that is known for injustice and treating people wrong? I wouldn?t trust America even if my last dollar depended on it.[/QUOTE] Why do we have these weapons? It was away to end a disastrous war quickly. We haven't used them since. I would trust America more than a dictator who gases his own people. I would trust a country who has come so close to nuclear war at at least two points in history, and have avoided it, rather than a country who is quick on the trigger finger, a country powered by greed, such as when they invaded Kuwait for its oil. [QUOTE]A haven for terrorists?! WOW! Is that something NEW to you? Every other middle Eastern country is a haven for terrorists; that?s nothing new. No matter how America tries to intervene and make false reasons to why we invade countries, the fact of the matter is that our efforts are all for nothing; I?m very sorry to say. No matter what we do, there will ALWAYS be some big time terrorist group or leader causing trouble. Next time, what we SHOULD do is listen to our allies whom of which probably are located in the middle East and know how to handle such a problem. But no, what does Bush do? Against the wishes of the US Congress, our allies and the majority of the America pollsters who voted against the war, he goes and starts, not one, but TWO wars. And the more I think about it, the more I?m thinking this war had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction or preventing terrorism. As a Republican pollster said, ?Bush said as a governor that if he ran for the presidency, he?d stop at nothing to make sure Saddam would pay for trying to kill his daddy.? Really, after hearing something like that from a Bush supporter is enough to make anyone think that this is a personal vendetta and has nothing to do with morals; just revenge. You want to talk about brutal dictatorships? Lets talk about George Bush, Sr. The guy didn?t know what the hell he was doing half the time, started wars that nobody wanted to fight, killed a countless amount of innocent people like his idiot son and he even managed to bomb an Iraqi museum with artifacts that irreplaceable; and even after all that destruction he STILL didn?t get Saddam then. I mean, if you?re going to come through destroying everything, at least get the guy you were coming for?[/QUOTE] Exactly. The place is a haven for terrorists. And we are doing something about it. I repeat, rather have something happen and then act, rather than act to prevent something? Palease man, its foolish to think that. Again, the Gulf War had to be done. He invaded a country purely for its oil, and then commited atocities. Sound like Hitler? Yes. Did Hitler get taken care of? Yes. Palease man. [QUOTE]Now, I know you?re wrong on that account. I?m FROM South Carolina and I know the history buddy, don?t try to quote me on that. I even go to college in South Carolina so with all this living in this state, well, you?d have to imagine that I?d know the history. President Buchanan DID act upon South Carolina or at least he tried to. There was nothing he could do. Buchanan didn?t want a war, he wasn?t the type to start that nor did he personally have a taste for it. He was, in a sense, forced into the war. No problem fell on Lincoln because to good ol? Abe, it wasn?t a problem because it took a rather simple solution. Again, don?t you tell me about my state?s history because I know the history like the back of my hand.[/QUOTE] [b]hen Buchanan took a more militant tack. As several Cabinet members resigned, he appointed northerners, and sent the Star of the West to carry reinforcements to Fort Sumter. On January 9, 1861, the vessel was far away. Buchanan reverted to a policy of inactivity that continued until he left office. In March 1861 he retired to his Pennsylvania home Wheatland--where he died seven years later--leaving his successor to resolve the frightful issue facing the Nation.[/b] [url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jb15.html[/url] Yes he did act at first. But then he took a police of inactivity. That doesn't sound like he tried to do anything. So please, read up on your history. You seem to be lacking it. [QUOTE]Riiight?that?s your justification for people dieing? They knew they were going to die? So when the police officer takes the oath they really want to die? No one wants to die and it?s not right that they should die. War is avoidable, war is NOT necessary, there ARE better solutions. But as some have wisely said, it?s just human nature to fight and squabble over things that are just stupid to fight over. We?re fighting a nation over weapons that we have and if not, we have BETTER VERSIONS of what they have and yet Bush thinks he has a right to judge Iraq. *sigh*[/QUOTE] No no no. Please re-read what i have to say. I didn't say it justifies it. I just said that they joined, knowing full well that they may eventually have to serve. And when that happens, it may mean they die. Everyone is making it seem like the joined thinking they would never have to fight. Which is ludicrous. You join the armed forces, knowing fullwell that you may be called upon to serve. Read what I said again. [QUOTE]Look man, you can?t harm what?s already been harmed to begin with. Kerry and Edwards can?t harm America anymore than what Bush has already harmed America. Good luck if you are a voter though, you?d be one of the few who actually votes for Bush. Even as the president, more and more people are favoring Kerry. I?m at South Carolina State University and I took a poll featuring over 40 thousand people on my campus and the polls are obvious. If SCSU votes against Bush, he?d be close to losing already. Nearly the whole college campus doesn?t like him and I?m in South Carolina, a state that favors Republicans heavily.[/QUOTE] Kerry doesn't believe we should be there. Look at the trouble we are having know and we have a C-in-C who believes we should be there. Imagine if Kerry does win. The terrorists will know how he stands and will take advantage of it. They will no longer just sit in the background and kidnap people. They will go in there full force, and do worse things that kidnapping. They will know that the President doens't believe they should be there, and will probably do nothing about it. Rather have that happen? I know I wouldn't. So please, go back and read what I said again. You seem to have missed what I said entirely. Read it closely, and actually think before you reply. To Chibihorsewomen: As Bush said the second debate. How can you expect to win in Iraq, if you don't believe you should be there in the first place? That is what Kerry thinks. How will he bring stability to the country if he believes that we shouldn't even be there? If you think you are going to get a bad grade on a test/project, you will most likely get a bad grade. It is a foolish notion to let someone who thinks we shouldn't be there, to lead the people all ready over there. He didn't have nuclear arms at the time yes. But from what I heard in the debate and from what I have read, Saddam was again giving the UN inspectors problems. When they start getting denied entry, or are having problems with something they are supposed to do, something could be in the works. And again I reiterate, something had to be done. Otherwise it would be what I said in my last post. The problems that would arise would land on another President's shoulders. And we wouldn't be blaming Bush, but we would be blaming him. But in actuality, you should be blaming Bush, since he would have failed to act. Exactly, I agree with you. Crime and everything is up. Which is exactly why we should still be over there, trying to keep some sense of order. Imagine if when he called a cease-fire, we pulled right. When they got Saddam, they pulled out of the country. Is that what you want? A country that has just been relieved of a brutal dictatorship without leadership? Because that is what I am getting from you and others. That once the mission was complete, people would rather have them withdraw and let them handle themselves. Only that would lead to another guy rising to power, and quite possibly being Saddam reborn. It is neccesary for us to try to keep order to the best of our ability, otherwise, everything will have been for nothing. A lengthly resume doesn't make a good candidate, but it does make a good doctor? lawyer? A lengthy resume is a very good indication of a persons abilities. Though not in all cases, it is best to have one. A good one. I could have a resume one line long and what would the chances be of me getting a good job? But add maybe 10 more lines there, and I have a better chance of getting the job. I liked the points brought up by Bush and Cheyne. Kerry and Edwards had many chances to have their input recognized. Yet they either didn't even go to vote, or they voted the against what Bush wanted, and are now attacking Bush because they themselves want the same thing. The same thing that they could have voted for from the beginning. From what I have heard concerning the first debate, I believe Bush had good reason to make faces and such. I hear that Kerry was bring up crap that just bothered Bush, things that he was itching to retort to. It is a common feeling among people. And if people expect that the President shouldn't be allowed to be human, something is mad wrong here. Just because they are running a country, they have to deny the basics of things that come along with being human? If someone annoys you, you are going to make a face or something, if someone says something you don't agree with, you will make a face or say something again. I repeat. How can anyone expect the situation in Iraq to get better if they could be Commander in Chief doesn't believe they should be there? How can you trust someone who voted against things that Bush advocated, and then are now wanting to do those things? I don't know about you people, but I want someone who says he will do something, does it, and sticks to it. I don't want someone who says something, then goes against it, then goes back to it. I want someone who is stable. I really liked Bush's part in the second debate where he said he is ready to be held responsible for his actions if they are brought up in the future. It brings me back to my point I have reiterated twice. The past actions of another Presidency, lead to the problems of the next. He has all ready taken the former part, and is willing to accept the blame for problems that may arise from it under a future President. Rather than having them live with the full blown terrorists, or a possibly stronger Iraq with WMD, he decided to take action. I would much rather know that we are taking steps to prevent things from happening, rather than waiting for them to happen to act.

[QUOTE]7. Some people say that Bush cares about America. Well, as his actions in 9/11 goes to show people, he doesn't give a hill of beans about America. Now, most leaders would be on the ground leading their people and advising the armed forces in such a situation. Now, where was our "fearless" commander-in-chief? High in the sky aboard Airforce 1...riiight...some leader...I bet if a mouse came into the White House and had a bomb strapped to it he'd get loaded on that plane and they'd fly to the nearest safe house as possible. Meanwhile, the American people are on the ground getting bombed and killed.[/QUOTE] That is the biggest bucket of horse crap I have ever read, pardon my terminology. What Boba has said is absolutely correct. Look at what happened when Kennedy was killed. They whizzed Johnson away in case there ws a much larger conspiracy. They didn't know. For all they knew it was the start of World War III.What would have happened if Bush was killed next? Would throw the country into disarray until Cheney took over. Though of course then you people probably wouldn't mind going to war would you? With your President killed and all. Please, please actually think through what you say, don't be like Micheal Moore. ;) I watched the second debate on the television early in the morning, sadly I wasn't able to catch the first. And I must say, Bush did a very good job. Kerry kept on saying things that "Bush didn't do this, Bush didn't do that," bull crap. Look at what happened at the start of his presidency. The terrorist attacks of 9/11. Everything had to be based around that one event in his presidency. Had nothing been done, all the things that Kerry attacked, probably wouldn't matter, since we could quite possibly not even been able to do anything anymore. He attacked Bush for saying at the start of his PResidency for saying he will allow Canadian drugs into the country. He then goes to say that Bush has not allowed this. Not so. Not true in the slightest. Bush is checking to make sure they are SAFE. Safe for use for the American people. If they aren't safe, they aren't allowed. Would you want unsafe drugs being sold to the public, which do more harm than good? Palease, have a little common sense Kerry, think it through. Out first step in this, was the take out Osama. The right thing to do. Get rid of the higher ups in the terrorist network, and they have no leadership. Without leadership, they quite frankly don't know what to do. This is a war that had to be done. Had this not occured, attacks would still be continuing. But now, attacks are being thawrted, stopped because of the actions of our men and women of the armed forces. I just caught a news broadcast during my Business Law class that they found a disk with schools from Georgia and other states on it. I myself live in Georgia and got concerned. But then I looked at it this way. Our men and women found this, and gave the states a heads up. Had we not gone in there, we would have no idea about this, and wouldn't be able to do this. What would happen next? Instead of a plane flying into a building, there could quite possibly have been a bombing of a school. It is things like this that cause us to do what we do. Would you rather we have not gone in there and found this out? Would you views have changed if that did happen? Now onto Iraq. Like it or not, something had to be done sooner or later. Had we not done anything now, it would only give Saddam time to build more weapons, and possibly more WMD, even if he didn't have them now, he could have made them. Had this not occured, he could have created them and used them. Then we surely wouldn't be complaining about going in there. Rather go in now and prevent something from happening, than waiting for something to happen. It is the same thing with a virus. We get a vaccine beforehand so we don't get it at all. Lets say the US does pull out. The Iraqi's are having their own troubles, and like it or not, they will need help. Without a stable government and a way to protect itself, it will become a haven for terrorists. They will flock there since it will be in dissaray. Event hough I sound like I am blessing America up and down, we are quite possibly the only ones who can help them on their way. They had just spend years under a dicatorship, a brutal one, and they need guidance, with us being the prime example for democracy, it is us who should help them on their path. Had the Greeks had this problem back when they were the largest power, they themselves would take on the responsibilty, them being the best example for a dictatorship at the time. Where we ourselves drew lots of influence. It isn't Bush's fault. The failures of past presidencies landed on him. It happens all the time. If you want to blame someone, blame Bush Sr., or Clinton. Or hell, go all the way back to Reagan if you want. The problems that face this nation in the present are not because of the President we have now, but the failures of past Presidents. The Civil War is a prime example. Has Presient Buchanen acted upon South Carolina seceding from the Union, the Civil War could have been averted entirely. But no he didn't. But naturally the problem didn't land on his shoulders, it landed on Lincoln's. Like it or not, the people in the armed forces signed up of their own free will. They [i]knew[/i] they could be called upon to serve. They know the dangers they would face when it came to that. It isn't like they were forced into the armed forces. They volunteered. You join an army, it is common knowledge that you will be fighting. You don't join it just for the hell of it. You go into it, knowing that at some point in time, you will be called upon to serve. Bush all the way. Kerry and Edwards shouldn't not be able to run this country, least not in these elections. They are not fit for it and would only cause more harm in my mind.

Yes, I think it is the one that is in LA. But look at some of those guys. There was one guy that they trust enough to travel outside of the prison, and talk about God to people. How can you not trust him enough? There are people in there, who don't even have the ability to commit a simple crime of stealing a pack of gum. If the people in prison are not going to get out at all, there is no reason to change the way they are. What is the point? They do a complete "make-over" of themselves, new personality, everything. I still believe there should be the possibilty for parole. Now naturally, a guy who kills dozens of people won't get out, but yet, crimes that are small in comparison to that, still land you a life sentence without the possibility of parole, which I find unfair. Another case of the Angola prison documentary I watched. A black man was accused of raping a girl, actually it might have been two? Don't remember. Anyways, he was sentenced for like 50 years maybe more. While in prison, him and his attorneys found evidence that showed his innocence. They found medical reports, done after he allegedly raped the girl(s), that showed they were still virgins. The parole board saw the medical reports, but didn't let him out on parole. Now should that man not have the possibilty of parole? When the evidence is there, in plain sight? He should have the possibility of parole. As should everyone. Without the possibilty of parole, hundreds, possible more, of the inmates of prisons who are innocent will be sentenced for a crime they did not commit. I find that wrong.

Look at it this way. You are with a girl who has other boyfriends/girlfriends. That my friend is not normal. You asked for advice and we gave it. The best advice given was for you to dump her if she has other boyfriends/girlfriends. What is the point in staying with her then? Obviously if she has other, she doesn't feel the same way about you, heh. You my friend are the one who isn't normal. Never heard of a guy going out with a girl who has other boyfriends/girlfriends.