Highland

Martin is so out of his league it's not even funny. He couldn't even bother to defend the values of the democracy of which he is a leader and representative. Gadhafi owned Martin. Reminds me of Kennedy and Khrushchev.

Two dictators meeting. Marvelous. This will be all over the news here, and Martin is going to get burned.

Facing him, so I can headbutt him, staggering him so he drops his gun, then take it and shoot him with the bullet intended for me.

Edited for clarity and accuracy.

Bush was another favorite to win in 2001. He wasn't as influencial as bin Laden or Guiliani, thogh. He was close, but they were more so. Is it usually the winning candidate that gets the MotY award during a presidential election year?

They copped out with the ambiguous "American Soldier" decision, and picking Guiliani over bin Laden was definately based on fears of a boycott, even though Rudy was the only other person they could have picked in 2001.

The international community didn't snub the US when it invaded Afghanistan, it snubbed the US when it invaded Iraq. World of difference.

There's bad apples in the bunch though, KR.

The Presidency tends to do that. Look at pictures of FDR from the beginning of his time in office to the end. He ages far years than the years he spent in office.

"PUT THAT PIECE OF GLASS DOWN YOU LITTLE FUCKING SHIT!" Problem solved.

Filthy scum.

This bitch, not Scott Peterson, should be the one facing the death penalty.

It's stories like this that get the attention and turn people against genetics; that and the fear of a "master race" mentality, though if this science leads to the elimination of genetic diseases and the like, then I'm all for it.

That was good for a laugh. Shot while doing a jig on your graves.

So that explains where you got the evil gene from.

Ban Failed Mascot for posting that pic.

There are better brands of toilet paper.

File a report with the police, also keep a bat handy just in case the coach and his boys decide to carry out their threat.

You are right, of course..... Next year it'll be OMGMOOREISFATLOL!2005!

Indeed. My better half (funny how certain phrases catch on here) is staunchly opposed to the war in Iraq and is an unabashed Democrat. She almost left me when I (half) jokingly said I'd vote for Bush (I fully support his actions in Iraq, I don't care for the Patriot Act). We won't know how things will turn out for at least a few more years, but we've gotten through far far worse situations than the Iraqi war, and to compare it to Vietnam and the implication that we are way over our heads and are/will suffering massive casualities is absurd and such a lack of faith and support is insulting not only to those that serve, but those that have served before. I shudder to think how we would have fared had we the amount and type of media coverage we have today with its constant predictions of doom and gloom during WWII. I daresay we'd have capitulated and retreated shortly after entering the war. It's because of these war people decry so much, because of the efforts of the US and other democracies that people are allowed to call Bush a moron and not have to be fearful of being dragged out of their homes never to be seen again.

The last I checked, Canada and the US were heterogenous societies. The entire 'concept' of these elections is to promote democracy. As usual you fail to see the broader picture. A stable, vibrant and free democracy will do far more damage to the cause of terrorism than any amount of carpet bombing. Quite a few people in the US and Canada say we should launch some nukes and vapourize the whole lot. Would you prefer that? Or perhaps you prefer the order and stability that Saddam brought to Iraq. Hitler and Stalin were very effective at that as well, by the way. The groups of people you claim are opposed to democracy in Iraq are those militants that would be prosecuted for their crimes in a lawful society and the once powerful Sunni minority that controlled the country. Think South Africa.

I confess to being ignorant as to who some of the celebrities in the originally posted top 10 list are.

I remember when you cursed the thought of having kids. I'd let nature decide personally. He needs more sacrifices to his god.

I was under the impression that there were, in total, more females then males. Reading that, it seems like you believe the opposite. So, am I just an idiot? Anyway, I don't think people should be choosing sexes of babies, for the same reasons everyone already gave. I realize the error I made: my bad. I still believe that selective breeding would result in much lower numbers of females, thogh.

Most people would choose to have boys, mostly because our society still favours males, despite the broad steps taken in the last 100 years or so. Predetermining gender would also upset the ratio of males to females in the populace, females would be much less common than they are now and given society's dim view on polygamistic relationships, the population of said society would quickly plummet.