According to the constitution, the military budget is one of the only things the Federal Government is supposed to be spending money on. It should be 60 to 80% of Federal spending, not 20%.

The straws breaking the camels back are the stupid earmarks on top of the massive amounts of money that is wasted every year.

The trillion dollar give away, called TARP is more than twice as large as the military budget. This recession has nothing to do with military spending.

I suppose we should use our military to conquer a few dozen other nations that do not agree with us 100% of the time. There are dozens of nations behaving far worse than Israel, should we send troops to all of those countries as well?

Personally, I think the USA is fighting enough wars at the moment. Maybe after we bring our troops home from one country, we can invade another, but I would prefer waiting until we have brought our troops home from a few other countries before we invade someone else (unless absolutely necessary).

Just out of curiosity why do you think that the wars bankrupted America?

US military spending is only a small fraction of federal spending. The wars barely increased this spending by a few percent of the total budget.

How can you blame the economic collapse on a minority of Federal spending?

If the US goes bankrupt it is going to be social security, medicare, medicaid, assorted other welfare spending, and these stupid bailouts. Or maybe the global warming hysteria.

Faith, family, friends, and freaky females.

It depends whose definition of "nice guy" you are using.

A guy that considers himself to be a "nice guy" thinks that he is kind, compassionate, considerate, supportive, and loving.

A gal that uses the term "nice guy" means weak, shy, submissive, and boring.

Based upon the female definition, a aggressive attempt to win is a contradiction. But according to the guy definition, it is perfectly reasonable.

I am not trying to be an ass (that seems to come naturally), but rather I am trying to make the point that we need to let go of the past, and start being peaceful now.

The Muslims have been fighting the Jews for about 1500 years, and the Arabs have been fighting the Jews for much longer than that. Getting justice for past wrongs is not possible. There are not enough innocents in the world to sacrifice to offset the wrongs that ancestors have done. It is time for peace, and that means the rockets being fired at civilians needs to stop.

If Hamas and the other groups stop attacking Israel, then Israel will have to stop attacking them.

As horrible as this situation is, I do not want to send US troops to Gaza. The USA has enough problems already, and we don't need to be in an ongoing battle in the city streets of Gaza. If that means many more people die, then many more people will die. It is a tragedy, but it is not a tragedy that the US can stop if the people involved do not want to stop killing each other.

No, I was actually thinking that if we only need a couple hundred Jews to be executed, we might be able to round up enough volunteers to put an end to the violence.

If we need to kill a few millions, or exterminate every Jew, then that would be much more difficult to accomplish.

How many Jews need to die for Hamas to stop attacking?

How many innocent Jewish children must be executed for justice to have been achieved?

The Israeli's are not attacking children, but Hamas, is using children as human shields in the locations they are launching rockets at Israel.

That is my point. The USA has enough going on, that we don't need to invade Gaza while wearing UN uniforms.

And if we do not invade Gaza wearing UN uniforms, who is going to go there and fight Hamas?

What is the point of the UN resolution, if there is not anyone willing to enforce the UN resolution? If the USA voted for the resolution, we would be obligated to enforce it.

And which of those countries are going to leave their UN peace keeping troops in Gaza to hunt down Hamas terrorists, and to face the same type attacks from Hamas that the US troops faced in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Or do you just want the UN troops to protect Hamas from Israel, while Hamas continues to launch rockets at civilian targets in Israel?

I hate to be cynical, but the only nations likely to support a serious peace keeping mission in Gaza are the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Personally I do not want the USA to send a bunch of soldiers to fight in Gaza, we have enough to deal with in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Besides the USA is there any other country with the ability and willingness to provide such UN peace keeping troops?

Egypt borders Gaza, if Israel's blockade was wrong, they could have provided the supplies.

Do you hold Egypt responsible for their support of Israel's blockade, or is Israel the only bad guy?

That is a very nasty piece of legislation. While it is possible that the courts would partially overturn sections of the law to allow people to refuse to perform certain operations, it is not a certainty. At best this new law would result in years of lawsuits, as well as many court decisions about different aspects of the law. It would require the courts to write thousands of pages of new law to fix the constitutional questions of such a law.

At the very least, it would prevent Catholic hospitals from treating government employees, old people (medicare), and various private insurance customers. It is likely to require that Catholic hospitals either close down, or perform abortions. But it doesn't stop there, individual doctors would no longer be able to refuse to do abortions at public and private hospitals, and thus many doctors would have to switch to a different line of work.

This is also another example of why we should not have a big intrusive government. When the government provides medical care, they squeeze out the private sector, to the disadvantage of everyone. When the government employs a large percentage of the population, they control a huge portion of peoples daily lives.

Because government is so large and intrusive, the government must choose to support one group of people, and oppress the other. If the federal government was limited by the Constitutional restrictions of government power, this would not be such a huge and convoluted problem.

While I personally oppose the death penalty in the USA, there is a big difference between killing an innocent child, and executing a person convicted of horrible crimes.

I was speaking in general terms, not about any one individual.

I have seen many discussions like this in the past, and I do not have an interest in getting into a detailed debate with any one individual.

I wish all of those who do want to argue the semantics of this thread a fun and enjoyable discussion. Just because I do not want to put forth the energy and effort to debate the issue, does not mean that others should not.

Or maybe in the English language, a word can have more than one meaning, depending upon the context?

Add to the different meanings of words in modern English, the changes in language over time, and it becomes more difficult to understand a single sentence, or even a chapter from an old book. I remember reading Chaucer (or whatever his name was) in English literature, and I must admit that it was challenging to understand what I was reading, and I know I did not have 100% complete comprehension.

I find it ironic that it is often people, who do not believe in the truth of the bible, whom insist that their interpretation of the words is the one and only possible meaning. Even Christian theologians do not all agree about all of the meanings of an individual passage in the bible, yet we are supposed to believe that only the definition given by one who does not believe can be accurate and correct?

This silly debate is one of the reasons why I no longer spend effort arguing in forums like this, about the meaning of the bible, in whole or part.

To answer the original question, the bible does not specifically exclude the possibility of evolution. The bible does not give us a step by step instruction manual regarding how man was created, but rather we are given a brief overview of our creation. Did God snap his fingers, and poof man exists, or did God create a universe, and set in motion a series of events which resulted in the creation of man? This is a question that I do not know the answer to, and one which I do not need to have answered.

While science has not yet proven evolution, the theory does seem to be very popular. Someday we may learn enough to know with certainty that an evolutionary process has shaped life here on Earth. Then again we might never have complete certainty about the accuracy of evolutionary theory. Either result will not prove, or disprove the bible.

That sounds interesting. If you are still looking for more players, let me know.

Most the guys I know, don't know what size a woman is (referring to your size 16 comment, which doesn't tell me anything).

Most can accept a chubby lass, although most are influenced by our culture, which favors skinny. I think that it is easy for most to ignore appearance once they have gotten to know a person, but before they know a person, they are more likely to chase the skinny mini.

Personally I think it is a good idea to have an informative profile. That information can draw the attention of a potential mate just as much as a sexy photograph.

I can't imagine being with someone who my family would reject so completely that I would have to choose between them.

If my significant other can't accept my family, then she can't accept me.

I am lucky to have such a tolerant family, and I can understand how some people could be put in a situation where they had to make such a choice.