Anything EXCITING happening yet? YAAWN!

How's this...

Here are two websites...

http://www.freerepublic.com

and...

http://www.democraticunderground.com

Both contain fruit-loops with no sense of logic. Some make valid points, sometimes. Some make Stoopid points. Non-Sequiturs, if you will.

And...

Wait...

HAY! I know why the forum is slow...

According to the liberals...

It's Bush's Fault!

Okay. Now your turn to Turn Up The heat. Nothing like some good old Controvery to get things going. Just ask 50 Cents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent (read the entry to see how Controversy has made him over $22 million - people have paid this Entertainer for CDs and Mixtapes that I wouldn't listen to if given for Free).

Michael Ross

It never ceases to amaze me the extremes that people will go to to waste time while purporting to be 'busy'. Unbelievable sometimes.

As for the wikipedia post on 50 cent...I think it's a shame that we can't find something, or someone, more positive to hold out to our young people to emulate. It seems sometimes that the worse something is, the more it is idolized in this country.

Saw the beginning of it waaay back some 40 years ago in North Hollywood-Studio City area. Sam Goldwyn and I used to chat about things Hollywood related and how they will eventually influence our world. He was right on the money, I must say. The rise of the Gay movement, the rap scene, the **** industry,and violent movie scenarios...we saw it all happening even back then.

All the home and family hearth themes and actors were just a smokescreen for the real agenda behind the scenes. In the name of 'real life' we suddenly found all the street back alley garbage invading our living rooms, our children's lives (and destroying their childhood innocence at the same time) until now our world is so polluted with garbage you can't turn a corner without coming face to face with it. Sad, indeed.

How's that for controversy, Michael?

Sandi Bowman

Sandi,

Thanks for your comments.

Let me briefly add this fopr consideration...

Homosexuality is NOT a Condition it IS a sexual fetish like any other sexual fetish - feet, stockings, high heels, S&M, B&D, latex, etc., etc.

When viewed this way, their Fight for Rights becomes even more absurd. And is as invalid as Any Fetishist wanting Special Rights just for them.

On the other front - garbage - each individual business controls what they do or do not sell. From movie house and recording studios to the humble store where the stuff is bought. I view it more a Reflection of that Business Owner's Standards more so. The Newsstand can say No To **** just as any Private Establishment can set Dress Codes for entry.

Michael Ross

Thanks for the reply, Michael.

Afraid your information on homosexuality is a bit out-dated, however. Recent studies show that there is definitely a different wiring, shall we say, in the brains of homosexuals. They respond to human pheremones differently than others of the same sex, thus the attraction to members of their own sex. This is true, whether or not they have ever acted on their attraction or not. Fetishists do not exhibit this different biochemistry in the brain. One is a learned behavior (fetish) and one is not, at the most basic biochemical level.

As far as choices among newsstands and movie houses, that perception may be reality where you are but it is not necessarily so in this country. Many contracts from newsstand suppliers and movie suppliers are simply a drop (shipment) of the standard offerings. Now, whether they are prominently displayed in their store or not, is the choice of the owner but not necessarily what is shipped to them.

Owners of newsstands and movie houses could argue the same as news media does that they're just giving the customer what they want but this perception could be a simple rationalization in most cases, just like it is in the news media. Who ever said that people prefer to hear only bad news? How about a balance between good and bad? We don't need to know about every kid or adult who goes off half-cocked and thus encourage copycatters. It's a tragedy for the folks involved but it doesn't have to concern everyone around the world. On the other hand, if there's an epidemic, and it could affect us and others around us, it's good to be forewarned.

The media, in general, has gone so far overboard in their sensationalism that they distort people's perceptions, inhibit progress toward solving problems, often keep negative emotions stirred up deliberately, influence creation and passage of bad legislation, and act as a negative influence on young people and folks who may be emotionally unstable...all in the name of news (and greed). It's no wonder we're seeing a rise in crime among the young. They haven't been given any other popular role models outside of the family to relate to that are positive and healthy.

Sandi Bowman

Believing in the results of "studies" is dangerous. Remember the "study" that found children were NOT in any way adversley affected by sugar? Do you suspect the fact that this "study" was funded by the sugar interests might have had something to do with its outcome?

The truth is, all beings are spirits, not bodies. Some, hard-core secularists in particular, like to blame the result of people's non-survival choices on the body or body chemicals . . . "Oh, gosh, I just can't help myself, I have no choice, my body made me do it . . . "

Blaming a condition that results from one's own decisions on this or that brain chemical is is the modern "scientific" way of "proving" that no one needs to take responsiblity for their choices and actions. One favorite phrase is "It's not YOUR fault!" And since it's purely a "chemical problem", well then, the only answer to any such condition is chemical --- meaning DRUGS, more of. Thus, it's best to check and see who is funding a particular "study", and what they are selling, before taking it as gospel.

Take the spirit, the actual decision maker, out of the equation --- which is the goal of the hard-core secular interests in the society - - - and you elminate the concept of free will. That accomplished, you open the door to blaming anything and everything that people do on anything other than the true culprit, the decision maker, the spirit.

The body CAN have an effect on one, and so can chemicals. But bodies and chemicals don't make decisions. That's the sole province of the spirit, the OWNER of the body. And the spirit's decisions, good or bad, pro-survival or counter-survival, have consequences. Not knowing this truth, those who do "studies" often get CAUSE and EFFECT backwards. They conclude that because a certain chemical happens to be on the scene, it is the CAUSE of the condition they are examining when, in actual fact, it is spirit's decisions and actions which CAUSE that chemical to be there! [Example: Get angry, and certain chemicals will appear in the body. To blame getting angry on the chemicals is backwards. The chemicals appear as a RESULT of the decision to get angry. They aren't the CAUSE of one's anger . . . that comes from the DECISION to get angry!]

---- Hugh