Welcome to Gaia! ::

Well, I don't have a degree but I'm not too bad with psychology myself. XP I understand what you're saying, as I've always had simular beliefs to that. :3 But I was just pointing out that the comedy shows are often more credable than the actual news. :3 But yeah... I know that there is no truth. >.>;

Hey... I was just reading the newspapers today and I thought about the little conversation we had about Poverty, in the world and in the US of A.

Well... I just happened to find something I thought to share with you all. This comes from a very serious newspaper, from a colombian origin, supporter of the United States because of the aid the country gives to them in matter of militar supplies, resources that help them fight their drugs related issues, but still very critiques of the Bush administration, but always talking with statistic in hand.

So, anyways, I've just got to know that poverty in the U.S., in 2005, reached 12,7 % of the populi, when at the beginning of the Bush administration, it reached 11,3 %... So, when Bush took power, there was something like 30,695,361 people under the line of poverty, by 2005, there were 36,995,000 poor people in America.

If we make a little sum, then that's something like 830,000 poor people for every year of the Bush Administration.

Which is weird since George Bush, when took over command, announced a measure to create "a society of landlords" to reduce poverty in his country. He didn't make s**t about it, of course.

Of course if anyone watches C-SPAN or whatever, you'll know that Bush already passed the bill for 2008... he asked the Congress for 2,9 billion dollars to be used by the Federal Government.

Almost 1/4 of this will be used to pay for military expenses (that's 725 million dollars), 10 % more than was used last year for the same purpose.

This bill-project also pretends to leave a 1% increase of this amoun ot money (total, 2,9 billions) to be authorized by Congress... if we take into amount last year's inflation (2,6 %), this shall mean that housing projects, environmental protection projects, education, and others will be incredibly cutted back from their bill.

Increasing poverty ridiculously...

Oh and the project also cuts back money for Medicaid and Medicare, which also already fails to attend 46 million people in the US.

Now I wanna share some curious data with you: In your country, a guy's poor if he wins less than 9,645 dollars a year. A couple's poor if they win less than 12,334 dollars a year; and a family of four is poor if their annual income is less than 19,307 dollars.

This means a guy's poor if he makes 26 dollars a day. Many people in my country, and everywhere in Latin America... and I bet everywhere in the world... would just DIE to receive 26 dollars a day.

I don't know every index, but I know that in my country, you are poor if your income is less than 860 dollars a month, that's with a numerous family. And you are downright indigent if you can't afford to make, at least 256 dollars a month.

Of course there are lots of cases in which a family of four lives everyday with less than a dollar per day. To be exact, they live with something like in between 0.25 and 0.76 cents of a dollar per day.

I hope this threw some lights over your doubts and informed you of somethings you were dubitans about

I know most of you don't care at all.. but still I'll post this >_>

Just sharing.. anyhoo here goes

Munich's security conference made clear that a scaring lack of ideas and plans exist to build an international scenery thats mildly peaceful. It was also a pathetic debut for the U.S. defense minister, in which he talked to a bureau of deaf men.

If something came clear at the Security Council hosted in Munich which reunited the secretaries of defense of the main world powers, is that today's world is more insecure than the Cold War's. But not only because the first military power of the planet is in hands of a bunch of extremists warmongers. But also because the other main countries don't have any clear and concrete plans to search for an international order that's mildly secure and stable.

In a nutshell: Munich left in evidence that noone has the least idea on how to replace the actual chaos for a web of armonic and stable relations. Such abyss was covered by the really hard speech from the russian president, Vladimir Putin, against the north american governmen, accusing it of increasing the planetary insecurity with their unilateral belicism. By now, it's obvious that the military adventureness of George W. Bush failed when he converted Irak in a black hole that spawns terrorism in greater scales and weakened the historic alliance between Washington and Europe, also crumbling the image of the United States, which paves the way for terrorists and the radicalized leaderships of the world.

In this sense, the speech of the russian president wasn't alarmist nor exagerated. What's worst, at the White House there are no signs of plans to revert the negative balance caused by unilateralism by actions that aren't militar but politic. On the contrary, they are thinking how a war with Iran would help to cover the iraqi hole.
The deficit in Putin's speech has to do with the war tendencies of the same Russia, which recurrs to the indiscriminated use of force against the caucasic separatism and increments the threats to countries like Georgia, with which it has differences for South Osethia and Abjasia.

In Munich, noone dared to tell the chief of the Kremlin to stop using Bush's mistakes to deviate the attention from his brutal repressions to the muslims and his support to the corrupt despots of their perpiphery, such as the bielorussian Alexandr Lucachenko and the uzbeki Imamol Rahmonov.
Other than Putin's speech, the most daring interventions at the Council were those of the US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and that of the irani civil employee in charge of the nuclear politics of that Persic Golf country.

In the case of the newly elected chief of Pentagon, the daringness resided in his weak response to the accusations made by the Russian premier. It's true that Putin's roughness took him by surprise; but it's also true that the Pentagon's chief's speech was made at the next day of the accusations, so his response was expected to be much more forceful. On the contrary, Gates limited himself to babble some ironies about the Cold War that weren't enough to resist the russian broadside.
He didn't even brought any convincent idea about the iraqi matter; ergo, his intervention in Munich was only meaningless, and that just brought up to the spotlight Ali Larijani's intervention.

The Irani chief of staff in charge of negotiating the nuclear question, recurred to a moving speech esnuring that the islamist regime does not want to withold any nuclear bombs. Larijani explained, in five different ways, that his country's nuclear plan has only a civilian destination, but he didn't convince the european representatives, who proceeded then and there to recommend to the European Union to apply sanctions against Tehran.
¿Why did Larijani failed the target of his attractive speech? Maybe because he was lacking, precisely, what they've been claiming for for a long time: Technical and scientifical explanations that are enough to cast away the fear of irani ayatollahs getting nuclear weapons.

In a synthesis, the Munich Council shed light on Bush's beliefs that results will be achieved with bombs rather than with dialogs; and that democrats are still not daring to stop his militar madness. It also made clear that Putin is only concerned about getting rid of NATO in the russian borders, so noone can judge the Kremlin for its ways of imposing hegemony at the periphery.
The encounter in Bayern also showed that Europe lacks a unified vision of the world, thus being far from proposing formulas to change the actual threatening chaos to order with acceptable security levels.

you bet your sweet, sweet sweetbreads i am <_<

well...start another debate. when i showed up the debate was just about over. if there was another one, perhaps more peo0ple would respond.

Censorship? I have a very strong opposition for it. It is put in motion to help parents not do their job. It is another factor that makes the USA a more conformitive country. :3

I believe that nudity should be allowed on TV. Parental controls should be issued more thoroughly, and censorship eventually phased out. I should be alloud to choose wether or not a program is suitable for my child, rather than the government.

About censorship, I agree... to some degree, even if I consider it a necessary evil.

Third party censorship it's indeed a tool fit for the lazy, a tool for classification (even though it's absolutely random) and for societal control.

A censor rules himself through morals, and not any but their own western-learnt morals. His opinion is not suitable for anyone else than himself (or herself, yeah) and only represents the average joe if he himself considers to be an average joe.
And if that's the case, I don't like someone which such a low self-esteem to be rating my visual contents.

Censorship should be applyied by parents and should be limited to each household so their kids are raised the way the parent's see best. Not the way the parents of Joey from five states away think your child should be educated.

But it is a necessary evil because we already live in a society of moral control and lazyness... so it's a bit too late for such a change.

On the topic of sexuality... mankind has always been obsessed with the phalum. Not only the western society, but also the eastern into a different degree. A large p***s represents a symbol of power, while a v****a culturaly represents the cradle of life.

The p***s has always represented power of sorts; the military uses badges that represents the male genitalia, as oppossed to the female genitalia which would be represented by a vase or a "v" symbol... the military uses this "^" symbol, and the more "penises" you have, the higher your rank.

The ancient civilizations used many phalum representations, including pyramids and menhirs, and also totemic representations of their idols.

The eastern world has focused a lot of it's atention to the sexual act and the pleasing of a woman through the sacred Kamasutra and the usage of sexual positions and the lenght of the p***s (it's a known fact that asians have small genitalia) to accomodate to the sexual pleasure of their partners.

Clasi's right about that's more important to know how to use your genitals rather than have a gigantic one.. because pleasure can be equally achieved and as well as the p***s, the v****a has an inner lenght which is on the midsize for the average person... plus the internal walls of the female genitalia do adapt to the form of the p***s inserted in them to the lenght where it can achieve the same amount of pleasure.

It is, though, a fact that a larger p***s is taken much into consideration when the woman is being visually estimulated. It just looks much more appealing, and it does, believe me in this one, than an average or below-average genital.

This would be the visual stimuli, but Clasi is still right when it comes down to the act of sex.

On the topic of a sex thread... i don't know how that'll go xd

on the subject of censorship, has anyone noticed how faulty the gaia language censor is? it edits the word ********, but put -ing on the end and it slips right through. ********. see?

it edits p***s and v****a too, and those are not generally considered offensive terms. i can list offensive terms for those body parts (as im sure we all can) that would make people slap me. but those terms themselves aren't usually considered offensive. just a thought