Well, I think any interpersonal relationship can be the subject of abuse.

Polygamy being, as you noted a "fringe element" to our society, it is an easy target, to focus on and dissect and say "Look. Look at all the freaky things that go on in this practice!!!"

The truth is, there are distorted (from an individual, human interest point of view) conventional, heterosexual marriages, distorted gay relationships and distorted polygamistic relationships.

Maybe "mainstreaming" gay and polygamist relationships will help cut down on the abuses, because then the entire practice won't be "underground," where abuses are likely to fester and are easy to hide. I don't know.


I still haven't heard a definitive argument that clearly sets up a convincing distinction between 1) allowing gay marriage and 2) NOT allowing polygamy. Again, if the argument in favor of gay marriage is "consenting adults - government stay out of it" I think you run into trouble re: polygamy, immediately thereafter.


BTW, not that anyone in here cares, but I'm completely in favor of allowing gay marriage AND polygamy.

My general view is that ALL of these personal choices, when made by capable, consenting adults, should be subject to as little regulation as possible.


But, I'm open to anyone announcing a lucid argument against it. I'll certainly listen to it.


BTW, I thought gay marriage was also not recognized in most of Canada, despite plans to do so.

I'm afraid a few paragraphs through that was way past my limit. The part about Israel using mini-nukes did it finally.

This almost did:

"We know that Clinton had some officers terminated and, in their office, shot multiple times and the rest of it. We know that that happened but the question is how many of the high level officers are on the globalist team?"

That was the "question" for this lunatic they're interviewing.

Get outta here, that's ****ing ridiculous! It's not even a good movie script.

And if there is a radiation problem in Iraq it's from our own depleted uranium weapons.

To me Wolfowitz is the most frightening one of bunch. Rumsfeld, well, he's beyond being a caricature of an *******. But Wolfowitz is so calm, almost intelligent sounding - except that the things he says are certifiably insane.

Again, this is not news.

There has been speculation since the very morning of 9/11 that the last plane was shot down by the jets that were scrambled to intercept it.

Indeed, as I sat watching a silent satellite newsfeed of the twin towers burning and crumbling and listening to the radio on the morning of 9/11, there were SEVERAL reports that the last plane had been shot down.

Even in the days after, the reprots were that the pentagon might shortly confirm that the last plane - which apparently WAS headed for the White House - was shot down.

A bit of public relations nightmare, that. So, even if the last plane WAS shot down (and there are reports that indicate it might not have been, as well), I couldn't really blame the politco-military powers for allowing those left behind by the loss to carry on with the image of a heroic, last minute struggle on the part of thier loved ones.

But John?????

(not sure I really want to ask this, but...)

If the theory is that the last plane WAS headed for the white House and it WAS shot down, how does that fit into your previously announced theory that the whole 9/11 attack was mastermined - or at least allowed to happen - by U.S. leaders?

Did the American cartel order a hit on themselves and then change their minds? Was it not supposed to ALL happen that way and maybe a couple of the Caaraa-zee A-rabs that they hired got a little carried away? Was it ALL a very elaborate ruse - desinged to keep us guessing?

You know, like the obvious "planting" of the gay marriage issue (nobody could REALLY care passionately about that stuff, personally - they just THINK they should act like they do, because its a convenient distraction, carefully placed there by Big Brother...), to keep us all unfocused on the REAL issues re: American foreign policy in the Middle East.

You think?

Conspiracy theorists want to know!!!!


Oh man, look at this...

"Historic seat of the Constitution????

Um, NO.

It's the current home of whoever occupies the office of the President of the United States.

It didn't even exist when the Constitution was written. New York was the temporary Capital of the U.S. at the time and the Constitutional Convention took place in Pennsylvania.

I don't think the Constitution has ever resided in the White House. It's in the National archives.

Wow.

You present quite a wealth of misinformation.

Even your OWN consiracy theories seem to be mutually exclusive.

I'm certainly no Wolfowitz supporter.

So, no. You are wrong there.

I'm not particularly fond of ANYONE in the Bush administration.

But, you didn't answer my question:

So which is it? The U.S. Gov't was in on the whole plan, OR they WERE the unwitting targets?


And - "order to stand down?"

There was no "order to stand down" from NORAD, the Air Force or any other entity. Fighters were scrambled as soon as they were alerted to the (quickly transpiring) events of the day.

Heil Hitler.

Wha'd I tell ya? I knew this was coming.

You were right. I'm outta this thread.

What idiot started it anyway?

?

Well, it was fun.

At least for me, anyway.

Apologies to all who endured my rants.


So, do you think it's possible to route the DA7's Aux sends to the digital outs on card 3 - without it leading to beastiality?