SkyDekker

I think the opcoming election will be very interesting to watch for outsiders like myself. Outside of the smaller groups who are staunch Bush or Kerry supporters and will vote for them no matter what, it seems that people have really only one choice to make: Do they want four more years with Bush or not. I agree that the majority of voters will vote either for or against Bush. I think that if the Democratic party had come up with a stronger candidate Bush would ahve been in a world of trouble. Now it will be close, but it will be interesting to see how many people will vote against Bush.

I was not trying to carry any weight with my point, just saw it as somewhat ironic. specially since the original poster went on the say something about US morals etc etc. Anyways, just thought it was ironic.....

Never thought I would say this, but I agree with you.

First read what I actually wrote Ron!!!!! I agree that Bush won the election fair and square, no argument there. What I said was that Clinton actually got the majority of US citizens to vote for him twice. Eventhough Bush won the election fair and square, if you count the votes (I understand you are from the US, but simple counting is something you should be able to do) Bush did not get the majority of votes.

And you have to wonder why THIS has not gotten much attention in the US media. You would think that all those left leaning media outlets who are all out to get Bush would be all over these stories.

Not only that, but he actually got votes from the majority of US citizens.......TWICE........unlike some other president I know.....

SKYDEKR is mine

But, don't you find it odd that Bush not only allowed, but made specific arrangements for OBL's family to leave the country? Does that not raise some questions for you?

It is not their vain beliefs I have a problem with. It is the complete and utter mis-management of the process that I have some issues with. Just like the US and most other countries, it is unlikely a politician will admit he/she made a mistake.

It is pretty cool to read on his website that he acknowledges that he screwed up on that landing. Seems like a pretty level headed guy who tries to learn from every situation he is in.

I don't think you will find anybody in Canada who is happy with the gun registry, for all different reasons from people on all sides of the gun ownership debate.

My sincerest condolences to Paul's family and friends. i have never met paul, but it sure sounds like we have lost a great one...... BSBD

Please meet Jonah Alexander, born on Thursday April 22 at 18.02 weighing in at 8lbs 3oz. Both mother and son are doing great and we are both enjoying every second of our new family life. Attached are some pictures, if anyone wants to see more pictures, please look here

Actually I supported his position knowingly. But then, you probably meant to say quite the opposite. Really, try and prove it. Webster's disagrees with you, so does every other dictionary. Do you speak any other languages, maybe I can try and explain it to you in that language.

Indeed

The funniest part of this is, that gravitymaster made a spelling mistake in that original statement. So even though english is his first language he makes mistakes and has a hard time reading a dictionary. At least I have an excuse

You're right, it is not, but that is somewhat beside the point. Your own quote indicates that assassination is a form of murder. If the three of you would have been able to read past your dislike for me, you would have actually realized that I am agreeing with you. By saying it is both, I indicated that the original question was flawed since you cannot ask whether this is an assassination or a murder since it by definition is both. Assassination is defined as a form of murder by pretty much every english language dictionary. Since this was politically motivated, yes it was an assassination, but that also makes it a murder, which once again makes the original question flawed. I am sorry if my very broken english was not sufficient enough for the three of you to understand that. Juansky, I would be happy to take money from you. You have offered to pay for my glasses before, I guess it is time to put your money where your mouth is. I just spent $348 CAD on new glasses. By today's exchange rate that is $256.52 US according to XE.com. I have a paypal account under [email protected] Let's see if you can back up all your talk with some action

Police has jurisdiction, US did not.

I'll just bring back your own quote from Websters. So, your point is still that an assassination is not a murder. Funny how your own quote proves you wrong.

funny, if you substitute gun industry for newspaper many people here would sing a completely different tune.

really, an assassination is not a murder? I suggest reading that dictionary definition again. It clearly defines assassination as form of murder. An assassination is by definition a murder, though the opposite is not true. Please do tell me where I am wrong.

Here is was thinking about the current, sounds like you are dipping into history. Western Monarchy have developed quite a bit and in many cases seem to be far more democratic than the US where only two party have enough clout to buy win an election. If only put in historical cotext then yes, the monarchies of yesteryear are not very democratic.

He asked why they are two different words. You guys were all arguing whether it was a murder or an assassination. All I am saying is that it is both.

Why? do politicians in the US only get elected based on one policy? Or could it possibly be a combination of policies?

Exactly, so technically it is both a murder and an assassination.