Iraq Abduction
 

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Iraqi police and a witness say about 85 workers have been abducted as they left their jobs at an industrial plant north of Baghdad.

The witness says militants nabbed the workers near the plant's parking lot. An engineer at the plant says gunmen in cars intercepted workers leaving the site on the plant's buses and a minivan.

The workers are thought to be mostly Shiite. The plant is in a mostly Sunni area.

If they start lopping off more heads, I'm gonna scream.

get ready to scream. that's sop with these nutjobs.

im sorry but i was waiting for a punchline and thought i got one but then read it again and realised it wasnt a joke.

this is how i read it

Time to go.

New York Times of 22 Jun 2006: These stories are now so routine as to almost never be reported. This type violence kills maybe 1000 Iraqis per month. Let's see. Saddam killed maybe 1500 Iraqis per month. American 'liberation' only kills about 1000. Numbers prove Americans are a more righteous and moral people. Same city where Americans are also accused of murdering Iraqis.

Yeah, but we have to be there! We found some rusty old shells in the desert that could have been used to kill American families! That's why we're at war, saving these people.

Santorum needs to shut the hell up.

Santorum Shite
 

I can't speak to the whereabouts of WMD, but I concur that Santorum is an ass. I can't stand that guy!

http://www.wildfreshness.com/brian/a...m_santorum.jpg

Wow. I think it's time to mail a certain Senator a basic "Intro to Anthropology" book.

So you are quite certain, Kitsune, that you have unimpeachable examples of societies doing any or all the above, particularly in preference to het marriages? This I have to see. [Don't make extraordinary claims without having the extraordinary evidence cold.]

Unlike tw -- whose thinking seldom resembles mine, as I am not some stupid, hackneyed, jaded, tertiary-syphilis case of a Blame America Firster like him -- what I find interesting about all this is that Saddam is so unpopular they're shooting his defense lawyers. And they don't seem to be hiring foreigners for the job.

"Included homosexuality"? Yes.
"Man on child"? Define "child" and how that varies from culture to culture. Answer, anyway, is "yes".
"Man on dog"? Oddly enough, yes.

"In preference to" has nothing to do with it, not to mention that the rediculous comparisons he is somehow trying to draw. But his claim of "every society" is bullshit. Santorum needs to read up on the interesting cultures of sex and marriage customs of Pacific Islanders, India, and tribes in Africa.

Man on child, however defined, doesn't seem to appear as a "definition of marriage," which is how I read Santorum's remark. Heterosexual unions with a wide age difference strike me differently from Classical Greek paederasty -- which was itself notable for being a minority practice only, and not apparently widespread enough to occupy even the entire bisexual population of ancient Greece.

I'll read the "Man on dog," and while we're at it, cf. the Arab historian's account of a Viking funerary ritual featuring "man on mare." Yep, it was a different way to mount a horse.

Now the way I read the Wiki entry on "dog" is that the whole business is much more a ritual, often performed for luck, than ever thought of as a way to make a family. It looks like no one anywhere tries to make that leap.

A contract must be between two parties who can consent... this idiot does not know that?
Can we get him a lobotomy for Christmas?

"Family" is a relative term and applies to so many different combinations of people, today, that I know marriage isn't required. Maybe you were talking about producing children? It is very clear marriage isn't required for that, either, so I'd even go as far as to say that westernized marriages are nothing more than a "ritual often performed for luck".

Namaste?? Isn't that like Gunga Din?

HES RITE! GAYZ SHLD NVR MARY!1!!1one!!1!eleven

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, breast implants, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were
allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears's 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8.)Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans..

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...ing_lg_nwm.gif

You forgot how we don't fly in planes and watch them moving pictures!

No no please, don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.:right:

'Course you aren't, we all know you blame everyone BUT america first...

Ib, America's foreign policy troubles mostly come from non-democracies, don't they? Really, how much blame is left over after we duly apportion it to the deserving?

Rich, thanks for the encouragement, but really, when do I ever do anything else?

Slightly. Lord Lovat's Lament is more like Gunga Din. (They're playing it as they put Din's body on the funeral pyre in the movie.)

Anyone get the feeling UG's kinda new to the whole sarcasm deal?

Nope. Not new to callow snarkiness either, but I don't do any of that.

Namaste
 

I thought Namaste was a name for a waterbearer, which is what Gunga Din was. I assume it's Hindi?

I suppose I could google it...

Peace.

Quote:

The gesture Namaste represents the belief that there is a Divine spark within each of us that is located in the heart chakra. The gesture is an acknowledgment of the soul in one by the soul in another. "Nama" means bow, "as" means I, and "te" means you. Therefore, Namaste literally means "bow me you" or "I bow to you."

:)

You also hear it rendered, "I acknowledge the God in you."

Tangentially, pick apart the roots of the word "enthusiasm" and see what you find.