Hmm. Ok, so you're going to nit-pick. You know exactly what I mean.

But we are the control. We cannot move without being moved, but we have
reshaped the world to our will. Of course, the process caused more
damage than we could possibly have forseen, but we've proven we can
grasp the reigns of existence and steer it to our liking. It is a wild
horse, one that kicks and bucks and threatens to throw us at all times,
but we've still got some control.

Oh. And I don't support Iran. But I like them a helluva lot better than
most of our so-called allies. If you weren't so prejudiced, you'd be
able to see that.

Oh well, I feel compelled to cut him apart once again. Just so everyone
else will see what I'm saying with clarity. I may have been vague, and
it can't hurt any.

I've stated that, with the current policies- a Third World War is
almost innevitable. We *will* come into conflict with Iran, if we don't
treat them as deserving of respect. They *will* fight back, as we would
in their position. Israel *will* be a target for the Bomb- it's far
closer than America- harder to intercept at close range- and the
Arab/Muslim world hates them anyways.

However, if we embrace Iran, they'll come to think of us as, if not
friends, at least trustworthy allies. Preventing them from assaulting
Israel may be impossible- but they won't use atomics if they think they
can win conventionally. And there's always that thin sliver of hope that
we CAN negotiate a peaceful co-existence. But that'd take a better mind
than I to achieve.


Regardless. If we don't change our relationship with Iran. It will mean
Nuclear war, without possible exception. The middle-east will be
rendered uninhabitable. We can only pray the other atomic powers don't
join in.

Jefferson once was quoted:
"Your right to swing your fist ends before my face."


Meaning that any right, even free speech, only holds true until it
unduly harms someone else. That's what slander and libel are. One for
damage of reputation, the other for theft of ideas. Both are speech, but
neither is free.

But individuality is what makes us what we are. To meld with the world
around us may be an adventure awaiting us after death. But for our time
in the corporeal world, we're designed to be seperated. To be free. To
fight that is counter-productive.

Sounds taoist to me.


My philosophy pursues unity. We're best when we truly unite our animal,
mental, and spiritual selves. To seek to deny or subvert our own nature
is not enlightenment, only dismemberment.

Of course, we shouldn't abuse our status. Abuse of power never ends
well. And mismanagement always results in harm. We have the power to
reshape the world to our will. And the responsibility to do it right.

And I agree with you. But when someone pulls out dirty tricks like
misquoting, I make it clear they're breaking all protocol of polite
debate- as an explanation to them and others as to why I'm no longer
bothering with them in the topic at hand.

Our souls are divine by virtue of their origins. We can choose to sully
them. Or we can choose to refine them to something even greater. But
we're divine beings by virtue of having them. If they weren't, there
would be no crime in murder beyond that of destroying someone else's
property.

So, we, like all things, die.

Our minds are ascendant, our souls divine, but our bodies are just
another animal. As any good master, we must know the feelings of our
servants. We share all the emotions of all the beasts. The thrill of the
hunt, the fear of being hunted. The flavor of flesh and of leaves. So on
and so forth.

We really are the one animal on earth that can know every feeling of
every animal.

Dude. It's the liberals who are trying to get rid of guns.


But regardless- the measurements of various countries' gun violence was
compared AGAINST THEMSELVES. So it's a "perfect" value- meaning
population has no impact.

My religion *IS* right for me. I don't believe it's right for everyone.
No more than a map of Europe is going to do me much good exploring
Kansas. We all exists in different points of the spiritual world, and
we'll each need the guidance proper for our location.


But for me, for who and what I am, I've found where I belong.

Actually- we're not comparing apples and oranges. We're comparing the
apple with itself from the past. And the orange with itself from the
past. And the banana, kiwi, grapefruit, tomato, and whatever other friut
shows up. It's proven the same results for every single one.


This isn't medical, it's mechanical. It doesn't change dramatically
between cases. It stays relatively the same relation.

The availability of legal guns is INVERSELY proportionate to the rates
of violent gun crimes.

Ok, how are we defining "superiority".

If we're talking biological abilities- we're in the shallow part of the
gene pool- especially insofar as "predatory" species go.

If we're talking our ability to shape the world around us. We WIN-
hands down- we don't even have the slightest competition.

If we're talking value.... well.... a human life is more important to
me than any other organism I'VE ever met.



But, ultimately, we have souls. That's what truly seperates us. And if
you've ever met a true sociopath, you'd know what a "soul" truly means.
That's what we'd be without it.

Maybe one day this or some other planet will spring forth something
equal or superior to us. Hell, there's a pretty good chance we'll MAKE
whatever it is. But until that moment, we've proven our birthright as
masters of this world.

I think some of them will be. I'm certainly not. What you just claimed
is ABSURD. Although, technically, you're right. Almost none in the
towers were jews. Althouhg, that's to be expected, considering how low
the jewish population is in New York.

Well, if you didn't deliberately misquote me, it'd make a whole lot
more sence. Oh well, you're not worth wasting the time explaining myself
to. I'll just assume the others on this site will be smart enough to
understand the contexts properly.

Oh. I KNOW it worked. That's not even remotely in question. But it was
a really dirty trick.

Someone threatened him with "compromising" pictures of his daughter. He
backed off. Then his daughter insisted he keep at it, so he returned to
the running.

That might work. But we'd never get enough votes to one candidate.


What might work is a post-proper election. An initial election amongst
the candidates. And the two or three top runners would then have the
second election to determine the winner.



And, if I was old enough at the time, I woulda voted for Perot. He
probably coulda done a very good job.