If Russia were to invade the U.S. I would immediately collect all of my important things, hunting supplies/fire arms/etc, and leave the city. Head to the highest mountain covered densely in foliage, and make sure that I'm at least over 100 miles away from any city... and I would wait for people to collect like this. These people will be the fighters, everyone left in the cities will be wiped out. At any rate, the people in the cities would probably hold back any sort of resistance anyway.

I would be part of a resistance, and I would probably die, but oh well... I agree with the original concept of America, as it's own nation, more than I agree with Russia at all.

See my post on the other side.

And you and jake seemed to miss the fact that, I wasn't ridiculing the fact that jake is gay. That's fine. I was ridiculing his ridiculous response, which proved him to be gay.

See what I'm saying?

Next, you don't know anyone who decided to be gay. You know people who were born gay, but who were told by society they weren't gay and gay is bad, so were in conflict for a large part of their lives until they realized they had been gay the whole time... like Jake :)

Hey you know who else did some poland stabbing of their own though?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal#Yalta

I know a bunch of poles who don't much like this.

If the UN is to have authority or input into other countries in an attempt to create peace i see no reason why the US must can be exempt from that same authority and questioning. The US isn't a shining beacon of morality and recently, because of forces such as the Military Industrial Complex, it has made choices that hinder attempts at peace. Change will have to come from within but it doesn't look like that's happening anytime soon.

As for the closing of the NY HQ i was more vague than i thought, i think that the HQ should be in a country that actually cares and listens to the UN but i don't think that the NY office complex should be shutdown completely just not the main HQ of the UN.

thanks a bunch!!!!!!!!!!!

Marriage would then be delegated strictly to religion.

I mean, if the idea is to say that marriage is a union between two people (taking out the gender aspect out of it entirely) then why not have unisex bathrooms and get rid of the notion of "men" and "women" and "he" and "she" and "him" and "her"? Lets just all simply be people. Lets blur the line.

And lets do the same with animals. No lion and lioness, just simply lion. This would simplify our language greatly. A simpler language would help a lot of kids graduate. Don't worry about dumbing down America. Maybe language doesn't have to be that precise. We all talk about the good old days and they had less words back then than we do now so lets turn the clock back to a simpler time.

"From all the studies they've done through the years plus the definitive information that was culled from the brains of dead AIDS patients, it is a fact that there is a center of the brain that is much different than that of the heterosexual, that it can no longer be denied. We're different than you are."

"What's next? Another word for homosexual love because it can't possibly be the same as heterosexual love?"

Now, marriage has two aspects to it, the physical and the emotional. Since the emotional/love aspect of marriage is the same, we can still use the word love as is. But since the physical aspect of marriage is different (for example, the genders involved) then why not come up with a new word? Where's the harm?

I mean, if the idea is to say that marriage is a union between two people (taking out the gender aspect out of it entirely) then why not have unisex bathrooms and get rid of the notion of "men" and "women" and "he" and "she" and "him" and "her"? Lets just all simply be people. Lets blur the line.

And lets do the same with animals. No lion and lioness, just simply lion. This would simplify our language greatly. A simpler language would help a lot of kids graduate. Don't worry about dumbing down America. Maybe language doesn't have to be that precise. We all talk about the good old days and they had less words back then than we do now so lets turn the clock back to a simpler time.

Bush tried standing firm for 8 years. The terrorists claimed that Americans could not stomach being in it for the long haul. Obama promised to change the doctrine of our 8 year approach to problem solving in order to create a brighter future and the American people voted him in.

Have we been in it for the long haul? I just payed less than $2.00 for a gallon of gas. Is the doctrine working? Do we stand firm against the terrorists or do we negotiate? Should the gay community stand firm and demand nothing less than marriage or compromise? What's the best approach; standing firm or compromising?

Is there a solution to the world's problems that will improve our current state so that we don't have to freeze time like in a movie?

If we could freeze time like in the movie, "Groundhog Day," should we? Just so that we don't run out of oil, whales, and polar bears? Just so that global warming doesn't continue? Even if it means that what we have right now will always be. Terrorist, status quo, Bush, etc. It wouldn't be perfect but it's not WWIII either.

Bush tried standing firm for 8 years. The terrorists claimed that Americans could not stomach being in it for the long haul. Obama promised to change the doctrine of our 8 year approach to problem solving in order to create a brighter future and the American people voted him in.

Have we been in it for the long haul? I just payed less than $2.00 for a gallon of gas. Is the doctrine working? Do we stand firm against the terrorists or do we negotiate? Should the gay community stand firm and demand nothing less than marriage or compromise? What's the best approach; standing firm or compromising? Or do these games just make us not care anymore?