Myk JL

Yes but embryonic stem cell research is so expensive that if a University cannot afford to conduct it, the money needs to come from somewhere that can. Because public donations are already factored into said University's budget, and the State's education fund cannot possibly squeeze out the extra dough for this important scientific research, the money must come from the Feds. It's the only way to get the research off the ground in a timely manner. If the research was no so important to the American people (such as brain damaged people like my older brother) then this wouldn't be an issue. Again, same as above. The money has to come from somewhere. The government by the people and for the people. The research is too important to NOT fund. I think the funding can come from anywhere else. In the hands of politicians though it's just for bragging rights. I just say remove all spending that doesn't involve protecting our borders & people would have the option to help fund this themselves if they want the money used that way. Well he just doesn't believe the Government should give aid abroad anyway. I don't care if it isn't in the Constitution. Again, different times call for a different way of looking at things. In 1789, we wouldn't have even thought of giving aid to a foreign country with tax payer money. But now that we can, why the hell not? Now I can see why we shouldn't give aid to foreign Governments. That's why I think that our foreign aid should go to foreign non-profits. I don't think it's right to rob from the poor to give to the poorer. If you want to give your money to non-profits over seas that's mainly your business. We don't all have to join in on the same cause just because a percentage thinks it's right. Different times from the early '90s. One cannot say that's it's a good or bad policy without having any knowledge of the attitudes about gays in the army itself. I know of a few isolated incidents of gays in the army (openly) and their peers had no problems with it. It was the superiors of their supervisors that had a problem with it. I think it's time to overturn this policy if it is indeed, a non-issue anymore (it should at least be reviewed closely). But I think "dishonorable discharge" for homosexuals is quite insulting when one considers the fact that when you get too fat to do your job in the army, you receive an "honorable discharge." It will hopefully happen at some point where they can be open about it. And the problem is that you can't convince every employee in a given workplace to unionize. In fact, there is such a stigma attached to unions, that in this day and age, you can't even convince a majority of the workforce to unionize. Different times. This is mainly due to minimum wage. Fighting it leads to fighting Feds & that's what makes it so scarey. Someone dictates what's the littlest you can have from outside of your job & if you don't like it you can just be fired & easily replaced by someone who may want that small wage. That is just fear mongering. Just because a group CAN have rights, does not mean that my rights are going to be dictating by said group. Individuals do have rights, but groups can have rights too. Take unions for example, the employees in the union are a collective group that that rights of their own, while also protecting the rights of the individual employee. Groups are fine, but it's not like your individual rights should go out the window just because your a part of a group. If group rights are individual rights then just leave it as individuals rights. Individuals have the rights to groups; not groups have the rights to individuals. Did he vote YES because of his beliefs or because it involved tax payer money. His gay and civil rights voting record is appalling (in my opinion). And this just seems like one more vote against gays in his already less than stellar voting record (when it comes to homosexual issues). My main issue with this one is the use of the word BAN. I think you would need more proof on whether or not Ron Paul is homophobic. Like "Voted NO on banning straight adoptions in DC." NOT presenting scientific facts that support creationism involved using tax payers' money? We should present scientific facts that support creationism because it wouldn't be at the cost of tax payer money? I'm sorry I don't understand. I was under the impression that this was just ideological. Creationism is a dead horse. It makes as much sense as proving gravity still works. I am however sorry I must've speed read through this one. Does he support it or was he asking them to present facts that do or posibly could? Either way Ron Paul wants to get rid of Public Schools. But I call this Government sponsored Religion. If people want their kids to have a Christian education, they should fork over the money themselves and pay for Christian and Catholic education. And what about Muslim or Jewish educations, would they not get tax-credits too? It's a slippery slope to give tax-credits for religious schooling. All a Tax Credit seems to do is remove the tax from paying for the school. It doesn't mean the parents aren't paying. You would have to show proof of where he voted NO for Jews, Muslims, or even Athiest if posible on this issue. But these tax payers' are also can't afford to go to college. If a student cannot afford to go to college but CAN get it otherwise, I believe they should be awarded some Fed cash. Black and Hispanic college have so little public funding and small enrollment as it is, where are they supposed to get the grant money on their own? Surely SOMETHING can be done. I can't afford to go to college either & I'm white. The Blacks do have UNCF. Also something about a Black or Hispanic College sounds like a form of segregation we don't need in this day & age. There should be no problem with anyone going to any college if they have the money. That is why animal protection laws are on the State level. I am big on animal rights, and with a score such as 14%, I have no choice but to take issue with that. That means that there were measures FOR animals that he voted against. I'm not going to criticise Ron Paul on this issue, because I eat meat. Chicken's rights go out the window for me on a daily basis. I may get to the rest later but right now I don't have time to discuss anymore of the highlighted issues. Edit: I just took a big dose of FUKITOL and realized that I don't care anymore. I just don't agree with Ron Paul on these issues because I'm not a strict "consitutionalist." Happy????? ^.~ No... I was having fun...

And you probably didn't know the opposite vote would have been unconstitutional. And even if you're done here I find it contradictory for you to say Ron Paul was the cleanest then be glad he wasn't on the ballot.

Wasp Knife?... A lame name that has nothing to do with it's killing power. Anyway it just seems it would be a lot more easier to find <insert item here> & jam it into some one's skull.

Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Jan 2007) It involved using the tax payers' money & Government has no business outside of defending the country. Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May 2005) It involved using the tax payers' money & Government has no business outside of defending the country. Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May 2001) It involved using the tax payers' money & Government has no business outside of defending the country. Don't ask, don't tell is a decent policy for gays in army. (Jun 2007) I don't know how rampant homophobia is in the the army so I wouldn't know if it was right or wrong. Gender-equal pay violates idea of voluntary contract. (Dec 1987) I see a small problem here, but it's the same as minimum wage problem. The answer to this problem is unionising. Rights belong only to individuals, not collective groups. (Dec 1987) So your rights belong to someone else? Would you really want the head of a group to dictate your rights? Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999) It involved using the tax payers' money & Government has no business outside of defending the country. Present scientific facts that support creationism. (Sep 2007) It involved using the tax payers' money & Government has no business outside of defending the country. Tax-credited programs for Christian schooling. (Sep 2007) They're not public schools. Anything that helps reduce taxes for anyone is good. Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges. (Mar 2006) It involved using the tax payers' money & Government has no business outside of defending the country. Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy. (Feb 2008) It probably involved using the tax payers' money & Government has no business outside of defending the country. Voted YES on scheduling permitting for new oil refineries. (Jun 2006) Government has no business outside of defending the country. Voting no would have been the wrong stance to take on letting businesses run themselves. Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels. (Aug 2001) It probably involved using the tax payers' money & Government has no business outside of defending the country. Voted NO on starting implementation of Kyoto Protocol. (Jun 2000) We have no business getting entangle with other countries affairs. Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore. (Jun 2006) Government has no business outside of defending the country. Voted NO on criminalizing oil cartels like OPEC. (May 2007) We have no business getting entangle with other countries affairs. Scored 14% on Humane Society Scorecard on animal protection. (Jan 2007) Constitution doesn't protect animals; just people. Voted NO on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects. (Nov 2003) I'm confused... Should he have voted yes for "forest thinning projects"? Besides it involved using the tax payers' money & Government has no business outside of defending the country. State role on medical care for children undermines freedom. (Dec 1987) State is the key word here. Not a Federal issue. And this stamps on private businesses. In other words It involved using the tax payers' money & Government has no business outside of defending the country. Don't pressure Israel to give up land for promise of peace. (Sep 2007) We have no business getting entangle with other countries affairs. UN membership leads to impractical military conflicts. (Feb 2003) We have no business getting entangle with other countries affairs. Voted YES on withholding $244M in UN Back Payments until US seat restored. (May 2001) I bet if he could have he would have voted yes for leaving the UN. We have no business getting entangle with other countries affairs. Sponsored bill invalidating International Criminal Court. (Mar 2003) We have no business getting entangle with other countries affairs. Voted NO on requiring lobbyist disclosure of bundled donations. (May 2007) Although I hate lobbyist they have the same right to privacy I do. I would however refer a Yes on requiring politicians to disclose the money they get & how / why they got it.

I also dislike that about him. No man should have an opinion on that matter.

Interpretation is fine when you have the whole truth.

Fixed.

Their isn't a price high enough to buy Ron Paul, because if there was he would have sold out by now. Both candidates suck. McCain just sucks more.

Some of that stuff about Jesus Mary Judas & Thomas I've either watched or read. I don't know how accurate it is when compared to Zeitgeist, but it probably is way more accurate than anything that asshat was raving about. I'm reminded of a problem I & some others have/had on a different forum. Their are 50 threads intended for conversations with people in your own state. Some people love to spam each & every one of them with ads. Their was a man toting Goji Juice as a miracle cure that could also get you rich if you sell it. Now I'm using this area like most others to find people near my location & ask him not to spam. He replies with something on the line of THIS IS NOT A SCAM! MYK I'M TRYING TO SAVE PEOPLES LIVES HERE! I told him I said spam, not scam. He continues to spam on a monthly basis after being asked by more than 1 person to stop spamming. At some point I look to see if Goji Juice is a scam. I found a video on non accredited (Doctor) Earl Mindell, spokesman for Goji Juice blow up over CBC's finding on Goji Juice. Now I'm not only telling this guy to stop spamming but showing him proof it's a scam. He gets mad & tells me DR. MINDELL IS AN HONEST MAN! DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND I'M TRYING TO SAVE PEOPLES LIVES! THEIR LIVES MYK! Sometime later this guy starts to play the race card. Making accusations that the people against him are racist. Now I didn't know this man was black. I just knew he was a spammer. Looking into his profile on the site he's also 64 years old. (40 years older than me.) It's one thing to get into a flame war, but with some one that old? How senile does someone have to be to believe they're selling a miracle cure? He eventually stops spamming a couple of times, but tends to come back spamming I MUST SAVE PEOPLES LIVES! YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT THIS PRODUCT IS. I WON'T STOP UNTILL I HEAR FROM THE ADMIN. And sarcasm like THERE'S NO MONEY TO BE MADE IN SAVING PEOPLES LIVES RIGHT? In one of my final statements to this man I tell him he no respect for the meaning of the word "local". He throws around accusations that people that have been against him are racist. Well I know Im white so the most offensive I can think of is this... I HOPE SOME 1 GRABS DR. MINDELL BY THE BALLS & SQUEEZES THEM UNTILL THEY POP SO HE CAN SELL GOJI BERRIES AS TESTICLE REPLACEMENTS! Months later there is a statement by the Admin on what's spam & he has for now stopped spamming. However the whole damn thing could have been avoided if the mods did their job. Apparently they only do if you might offend the admin.

Every movie you just listed I wouldn't go to a theater to see... I haven't seen Black Lagoon, but Gundam got royally screwed when they branched out of UC. Batman Forever & Batman & Robin were pure crap. Grade F milk.

I was expecting to end up with someone more... Jack Assish... You scored as a Batman, the Dark KnightAs the Dark Knight of Gotham, Batman is a vigilante who deals out his own brand of justice to the criminals and corrupt of the city. He follows his own code and is often misunderstood. He has few friends or allies, but finds comfort in his cause. Batman, the Dark Knight 75% Captain Jack Sparrow 67% James Bond, Agent 007 58% William Wallace 54% Indiana Jones 46% Lara Croft 46% The Terminator 38% Maximus 33% Neo, the "One" 29% El Zorro 25% The Amazing Spider-Man 13%

I never thought the word Lesbian was an insult.My only problem with the word gay is the other homosexual slang that has been popping up. Queens, Flamers, etc. I really only want to hear the word queen when referring to an actual woman of royalty. And since when was fire homosexual? And I'm also upset that rainbows are now a gay pride symbol. I had preferred them to my childhood years when they lead to promises of fortune. I'm not homophobic. Homosexuals deserve the same rights as others when it comes to politics. (IE Don't blame me they get kicked from XBL because of Microsoft's ToS.)

Happy B-Day!... *Gives the rest of my buttons from my remote control.*

Kinda sucks... Kinda doesn't... It's not like theirs tons of "nicknames" for Homosexual women. Now that would be really confusing.

The story sounds weird...

I'll start to worry even more once I've seen the cast...

I can only hope T4 doesn't suck like T3...

Worst Jib Jab joke I've seen... Ron Paul can't be bought or sold like the rest of the 1st party candidates. The whole NAFTA thing still scares the crap out of me.

I'm appalled by the fact that I agree with Rosie O'Donnel...

Wait... It wasn't Don Imus was it?... If only Obama shared Ron Paul's views he'd be worth voting for. The only thing Obama has going for him is he isn't senile like McCain.

... I guess that does sound like fun!... wait...

It's more likely an unmanned aircraft.

I prefer George Carlin when it comes to this matter. The "Soul" is just a propaganda tool. Because if there was 100% proof we'd all act differently. Any major tragedy we would just shrug off. But we don't. In fact we'll go to war if enough people get killed. Why get so mad that someone was killed if they're going to live again? The "Soul" seems like a market ploy made by rulers who want militaries and don't want to die themselves. It's probably the biggest contradiction that works for leaders. And if your "Soul" is immortal why would it matter if it felt physical pain? Physical pain has no purpose if you have an "Immortal Soul". Physical pain however does have only one real purpose & that is the fear of death or being crippled. It is only then for that moment that most realise they're only going to live once. The people who don't want to die the most just so happen to be the richest people on the planet. Because if you can tell a poor person that their "next life" might be better they're not really going want to live as much. And then it's somehow OK that they got screwed over in life. If the body didn't rot (age) while it was alive. If you could look & act like you in your 20s for as long as you want. If you didn't get screwed over by someone higher up at work. You would want to live forever with most of the same memories, etc. But we don't have that. We just let our bodies rot, age, slowly die. Because we're not being killed on the spot. Most of the people who think it would be great if they die in their sleep at their 'old age' have somehow accepted the fairy tale of an "Immortal Soul". Because if they had accepted that they only live once they'd want physical immortality. The people who might treat life likes it's a video game (mass killings, etc) might as well be the same people who talk about the "Immortal Soul". Because their isn't a real difference between "the reset button" & "starting over in the next life".

That is some weird shit...

Now to inform the prisoners that what's happening is not an 'alien probing'...