I support people wanting to get married, and women making their own life choices and people believing in their own religions which aren't always Christianity. So for that I have to disagree with this article.

Thank you very much, and believe me, I will! :)

I'm only going to comment on your third point because I'm sure Anonymous can handle herself, but I hope you realize that the point was not whether or not the fetus is alive or not, or even whether it's wrong or not (which there IS no difference and it IS wrong but), the point is that Americans freak out about cutting down a tree and yet killing an unborn baby means nothing to them. The point was to show the irony and hypocricy of the American nation.

First of all to bring rligion into politics is illgal. Second, who are you to dictate what the dfinition of marriage is. Third, there is a diferenc between a fetus and a breathing human being.

This is great I completeyl understand where you're coming from, and I agree! Keep writing! :)

oh believe me your not! some people though are too afriad to stand up

Thank you! I'm also glad I'm not the only one! :)

i agree with you though i dont have a problem with same sex marriges. but really America needs to wake up and realize whats going on! you are so right and its good to see that im not the only teen that thinks this way

Thank you!!

i wholeheartedly agree. I think that the current leaders of the US today could stand to take a page from many of the early presidents, who had not lost sight of what was important! Honestly, the world's not going to take care of itself. If we don't do something about that, then there will be no one around and cheaper taxes and cutting down christmas trees won't even matter!

And thank you!! :)

I'm gonnacomment on this, and share a little quote my friend says a lot. "Republicans are fine just sitting back and being republican, but for the democrats, everybody has to be democrat.

i agree with this. Thank you!

"You cannot rightly govern America w/o God and the Bible."-George Washington Thank you for actually realizing that!! :)

This is amazing!!! TTLY agree!!

Or excuse me, hetrosexual marriage is not in the constitution, but constitutional in its own rights.

Okay, you're obviously republican. But that's beside the point. So you think it's horrible that people of the same gender want to get married? Where's the justice in that? And that last stanza/paragraph, about God? You realize it's unconstitutional to bring religion into laws. In fact, messing with gay marriages seems unconstitutional too. You're offending all kinds of different people with this poem/article. Wake UP and be considerate!

Allende was  a COMMUNIST. And what you're saying that it didn't matter that they elected a communist if that's what they wanted. That's wrong. Germany wanted Hitler as a ruler also, look how that turned out. You're saying it doesn't matter that you're  communist as long as everyone likes you. No. If you're a communist, you're communist, it's as simple as that. Hitler was a communist, a communist wanted by the people and slowly but surely he began WW2. Allende, doesn't matter is he was elected by the people, was a communist and if he had been given the chance would have been as bad or worse than Pinochet. He might not have been. We'll  never know. But there has never been one single communist who has wanted peace. The whole point to communism is control. Control over the lives of all the people beneath them. Look at 30's and 40's Germany, look at Korea, at China, at Cuba. If someone didn't obey them, they were killed. Why do you think so many people escape Cuba every year to come to America? Because they want freedom. A freedom America did NOT take away in their country and one they CAN give in America (US).

Nicaragua: When you made your statement, you seemed to have over looked a certain word: ruled. The conservative party ruled at that time and apparently saw something wrong when the rebellion formed. They asked for help and we gave it. We didn't impose on their freedoms when we entered with permission. We were asked to be there. We didn't just suddenly decide, "oh well you know they have a rebellion down there, let's join a side and fight." We were asked to help. You're ttly missing that point. If you want to be mad at anyone, be P-O-ed at the conservative ruler, because apparently he wanted to destroy the rights of his people while trying to protect his people. Yeah. THAT makes sense.

George Washington has nothing to with this. He was defending our soon-to-be countries freedom, just like we were trying to do in Latin America. Europe was convinced that we would be better off as European colonies, so they taxed us and we fought back. We were under the control of England. Latin America was never under the rule of the US. We went in purely to help. We never created Pinochet, or Hitler, or Amin, or Castro, or ALLENDE. You act as if we raised these men out of the ground and put them in that position to overtake countries. We didn't. We went in to these countries to protect the freedom that would have been taken away if communist (like Allende) would have taken over. Granted, it didn't always work, but nothing ALWAYS works. A few mistakes were made and communism did take over in certain countries, and when it did, it wasn't the fault of the US. We helped where we could. What else could we do?

Nicaragua: Why was Sandino killed? who supported Somoza's cruel and bloody dictatorship? You have to understand, the US didn't act for the people of Nicaragua but for the conservative minority that ruled. Admiting all of this doesn't make you any less patriotic, now, if you deny all of this and blindly accept all that is given to you that is not patriotic, at least that's what I think.

Chile: Allende was a Socialist, a Socialist ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE. The people of Chile elected him. He wanted unification and peace in Chile, he wanted the people to have the power not the conservative minority. And of course the US GREAT DEFENDER OF FREEDOM organized the coup d'etat to overthrow Allende, which resuted in Allende's death and the imposition of Pinochet, who was not a communist but a conservative, yeah like those US administrations you defend so dearly. Under the rule of Pinochet thousands upon thousands were either killed or disappeared. My question is why does the US think they can get into anyone's bussiness? What give them the right to take the freedom of this people and replace it with cruel dictatorships? 

What you say is like saying the US were better off as a British colony. Do you condemn Washington for rebelling against a foreign oppresive government? He fought against the conservative British minorities, does that make him a bad guy, a communist insubordinate? According to all that you've said it seems so.

The last time the US fought for someone else's freedom was in WWII all wars after that and all invasions they made, were made for their own sake and greed, they only cared for the possibility of money, they never fought for the freedom of the oppresed but against it.

Nicaragua: America "invaded" as you call it with the support of the conservative governor. America had the support of the entire country after Jose' Santos Zelaya fled the country. He killed two American mercenaries who had rights to be in his country. If they had come in with absolutely no right to be there, I give him permission to defend his country. But the American were in  Nicaragua to give financial support and help break the ties with the European government, which is what the  Nicaraguan people wanted. A rebellion was formed against the Americans, formed by those who felt they had no right there, and Adolfo Diaz, the conservative governor of that time, asked the Americans for help against the rebellion. Granted, the Americans had some personal reasons for helping (like the fact that they felt their railway was threatened), but they helped because of the close relations between America and Nicaragua. The Americans secured their railway, while also protecting Diaz and his people from the rebellion. Mena' (leader of the rebellion against Diaz and the Americans) soon fled the country (sound familiar?). After a long fight (with only 27 casualties on the Nicaraguans part), Zeledón (one of Mena's men) was defeated and the Nicaraguan Army and the American marines soon settled the rebellion. Of the 1100 members of the US military that intervened in Nicaragua, 37 were killed in action (more than the Nicaraguans, mind you) . With Díaz safely in the presidency of the country, the United States proceeded to withdraw the majority of its forces from Nicaraguan ground, leaving one hundred marines to "protect the American legation in Managua." American presence in Nicaragua enforced peace for about fifteen years, guaranteeing US influence in the country's politics and economy. Which I must say is a good thing.

Chile': First of all, Allende was a MARXIST! Marxism-"Karl Heinrich Marx (The founder of Marxism) was a German philosopher, political economist, political theorist, sociologist, and COMMUNIST whose ideas played a significant role in the development of modern COMMUNISM." Now doesn't that just about destroy your little theory? What difference does it make that we killed him and another communist came in? All that says is that we made a simple mistake by not taking out Pinochet out too. We never made Pinochet become a communist dictator like your trying to convince everyone of. We took out one communist and if I had been in control we would have taken out Pinochet too. It wasn't our fault.