SeVeR

The article says `links with Al-Qaeda' but i honestly see that as complete crap. What links are these? It could mean anything or it could be completely untrue. Who would know and would it ever get reported? In the first short section of the article is says "insurgents" "militants" "terrorists" and "Al-Qaeda". So what are they? Is this another key-word crusade where the fact they're Muslim means everyone will just believe it? The American supported Christians are the Ethiopians and those supported by the Ethiopians in Somalia. This is a religious conflict and America shouldn't be involved. I wasn't old enough to properly analyse or care about the 1998 bombing of Sudan. It doesn't matter if it's a democrat or a republican though. It's not like i'm a fan of Hillary now is it..

I think the people who tell Bush what to say are smart. Bush himself may be reasonably smart (he is educated... to some extent) although his accent, mannerisms and lack of eloquence superficially suggest the contrary. The oil interests may have something to do with it, although at a time when most of Africa is gripped in religious conflict, i am not surprised that America is crusading for the Christian cause.

The United States is interfering in another conflict, this time in Africa. It's no surprise that Muslims are being bombed. The excuse is of course that they're terrorists, although i doubt they've done any worse than the American supported Christians. Views? Is it right for America to interfere for religious reasons? Is it right for America to interfere at all? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7376760.stm

Yea true, Dexter is the best show i've seen in a long time.

Find something else that's trendy... like poker. Oh right, you did that already. How about internet computer games?... Oh, right, yea... Hmm. Go buy a mobile phone with a microwave in it or something... sheesh.

I can log into DSB so it's not SSCU When i travel to different places i can connect to 17th, so it's not my computer. I've given up now because it's been like this for about a year.

Here are two videos that tell an interesting story about the Clintons. (23 seconds) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azVAkWfJPZ4 (31 seconds)

Yea, but today the news broke that: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7367757.stm So we should see some reduction in prices.

To say the cons!@#$%^&*ution shouldn't evolve (because it isn't alive) is to say that it doesn't represent the people in any way whatsoever. Societies change and evolve, and so must the laws they live by. One of the reasons i don't like Hillary: Recently Jewish representatives of the three major presidential candidates held a debate. Hillary Clinton's representative stood up in all seriousness to say: "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties (of Israel)." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...8031702440.html That's why i called her a Zionist. Fear-mongering, well we've all heard about the advertisement. Continuity of the status quo, http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/200...29/195654.shtml . This article reveals she voted for the war in Iraq, and now uses the stupidity excuse of "it was a mistake". Remind you of anyone? Anyway, i can't remember what else i said about her, but these are some of the reasons i strongly dislike Hillary.

You don't have to tell them you don't like them, you just don't have to say you DO like them!

And if you don't like someone then you shouldn't pretend to like them. I respect that.

Yes it's an opinion, that doesn't mean it isn't a cheapshot. What i mean is: Obama gave an answer to a question. You can either call him honest or a liar. A cheap-shot is when you come out with a calculated, but irrelevent, statement to try and sabotage your opponent. In Obama's case i would call him honest, because he risked a bit of controversy to respond that way. I don't see how he attempted to sabotage Hillary by doing what what he did, do you? So i give him credit for honesty. I don't have time to make a more in-depth response to your questions yet, maybe later.

I obviously just read more news than you do. Heheh, well they have to be different in some respects, otherwise there'd be a revolt. On the important points the Clintons and the Bush's are no different. There's a difference. Very few people on Earth can claim to come up with an independent thought. What matters is whether or not someone told Clinton to have certain policies, or whether she listened to a few people and genuinely thought the policy to be a good idea. So many politicians have a hand in Hillary being where she is, that i doubt she has much decision making allowance. I just read about this, and i have to ask you: How is this a cheap-shot? I would probably have the same reaction, and give the same impression. It's an opinion.

If i believed everything i hear in the press i would think Obama is an inexperienced, jew-hating, muslim who sympathises with terrorists, and who is only where he is because he is black. But no, TRP, i don't believe all the rubbish i hear in the press. Hillary Clinton is a fear-mongering, corrupt, zionist who is only where she is because she was married to Bill Clinton. She represents a continuity of the status quo, and will have an inneffectual term in office because she is so incredibly well connected (politically) that you can bet none of her policies are her own. Oh yea, and i didn't get this fed to me by the press. McCain, well i don't care. He is likely to continue the war of terror (pun intended), and a hostile foreign policy. Over the past few weeks i have read about Clinton's cheap-shots at Obama, and each time i would read the reply from Obama and think "this is the kind of non-hostile response that i would expect from an intelligent and honest man who understands the ridiculous tactics used by Clinton". He has my support just for not being a petty fool looking for cheap shots.

I just visitted the zone. I love what you've done with the base i made, i think its an improvement, and the map is really good now. I like the little graphic showing which flags are owned. Also, having the 2v2 bot is a good choice with the population we have, and its an awesome event. I really have nothing bad to say. I can't play the zone when i'm at university though (which is most of the time), as there is some weird connection issue still. But i'll visit at times like these when i'm in other countries. I'm 23 now, and play dsb (since i can connect to it).

Without knowing the factors that determine how innefficient a government is, we can't really draw a conclusion. For instance, lines of communication, deployment of resources, and delegation of responsibility may all be key factors that if properly recognised would make a super-government work as well as any other. I would theorise that there is nothing inhererently worse about large governments, only that ther job is more difficult. However, i thought there were more paranoid, conspiracy type concerns at the core of this distaste for world government.

What is inherently wrong with world government and globalisation?

Exacty. So that's the last thing the government would want to do.

On Bush, they are ruining his Presidency, but only now when he can't stand for re-election. It's a good ploy. Many would think the media was against Bush the whole time. In the case we were discussing, it's the repe!@#$%^&*ion (like Ail said). Also it's in the simplicity of the statement, it's easy to remember and shows some under-lying level of knowledge about Obama (his past experience). Aquarius is therefore very correct in saying the statement is exactly what people want to p!@#$%^&* of as their own opinion (easy to remember and shows understanding). Lastly, what i personally can't stand, is the tone of voice the news-readers use to say these things. If you say "Obama is inexperienced" in a dismissive, put-down, tone of voice, then the listeners will pick up on it. This i have to say is the biggest difference between American and British news, and i think it's quite possibly what does the most damage (guiding thoughts).

What if Bush used the excuse of "Iran has supplied weapons to our enemy, and therefore they have entered into this pre-existing war". I don't know if that would work. Also do they need to declare war in order to blow up a few military/nuclear installations in Iran?

The outbreak of war doesn't make each side equally deserving of victory. Right. Wrong. A poor excuse. Why not let them form their own government? From the people for the people..... (or was that forgotten somewhere along the line?) Was the Sykes-Picot agreement the right thing to do? Really? So we allowed millions of Jews to immigrate to these countries before giving them the majority of the land? I see Jordan, Syria and Turkey being run my native people's of the region. They weren't transplanted there. The occupation by the British never ended, they just passed the buck to the Jews.

You continually speak of the government as if they weren't elected by a majority vote. They are representatives of the people, and thus any laws in our society are laws made by the people! The government controls us, and thus, we control ourselves. I understand that the democratic process isn't perfect in America. But that isn't your argument. You're saying that laws made by a democratic government are there to control us and thus erode democracy. As i've previously explained, this is wrong. The more we as a people make laws for our protection, the more we re-inforce our democracy. If America's government is not democratic enough to give the people enough of a say, then laws aren't the problem, America turning into a fascist state is. The government is in the peoples hands in any proper democracy. Thus, we as a people decide the laws of our society. If it isn't this way, then we have a council of dictators, and my original statement stands that: The more laws you democratically vote for to ensure the freedom and safety of the populace, the more of a democracy you are. The more laws that are enforced by a dictatorship without the consent of the people, the less of a democracy you are. Yes, one example of an imperfect democracy. And let me add that i am almost positive they'll vote for Hillary. Shoot people until you get what you want? No thankyou. You have a vote, i have a vote, the only people wanting more than one vote are those who claim to be oppressed. They form militias, and un-democratically attempt to overthrow the democratically elected government. What happens when they succeed? They give the country back to the people? In pre-WW2 Germany the military and police agreed with the wishes of the people. My point is that the police and army are just like you and me, they will not follow a leader who wants to turn his own people into slaves. Unless you see the police/army as mindless drones, you can rely on them to agree with the wishes of the people, because they are of course from those people themselves and have family there. This paranoid isolationism and alienation from society is typical of extreme conservatism. They turn any kind of enforcer into a demonic figure with oppressive intentions. Pre-WW2 Germany clearly stands in support of my argument. Oh, they can and will fight. I just don't see what good guns would have done them. So the militia is a weapon against democracy in other words. This small group of individuals will employ no democratic process in deciding what is right or wrong about the government that has been elected by the people. I sure am glad we don't have a militia. You didn't answer my questions. Again with the council of dictators. WE ELECTED THEM, THEY ARE NOT DICTATORS!....

...when you meet in battle ....

You didn't answer my questions. You instead nit-picked at some points, which incidently, you failed to understand. Was Palestine a threat to the British after WW1? No. Was Palestine always a threat to the Ottomans by being on their border? Yes. You completely missed out the historical argument and the racial argument. Thanks for nitpicking. Why the "actually"? I was always talking about the British Mandate. Nevermind, this is probably why you didn't understand the earlier point.