AstroProdigy

Pakistan is going to be stable with US support, but we've basically been backed into a wall there. We can't possibly do anything there for fear that a few nukes "disappear". We also can only support the ruling government because they control the nukes no matter how corrupt or dictatorial they are. This is all because Pakistan has nukes.

It's funny how Sharif while paying lip service to how terrible he claimed he thought her death was, was quick to play politics by boycotting the elections in order to postpone them. He wants to avoid the rallying call her death would bring to more progressive minded supporters of hers and prevent a progressive government from being elected as opposed to his conservative Islamist party. Also, for Aileron, there's no reason to believe it couldn't also have been an orchestrated assassination by some of the people pretending to still be playing by the rules of political correctness. It's funny how low those people will sink as long as they think they can keep what they do a secret and have the media on their side. Ring a bell, anyone? Attraction: Pakistan is a weak country with nukes. If it weren't for those nukes their influence would be confined to Afghanistan, that is already fighting us, and India, which never lets Pakistan push them around. Unfortunately, the US let Pakistan, an Islamist country with a poor, restless population get nukes simply because they had a history of being an anti-communist American ally and now we're forced to prop up whatever crap they come up with that they call a government because Pakistan could easily "lose a few" to Al Qaeda otherwise. America is the world's hyper power my !@#$%^&* if our politicians can bungle our backs to a corner so easily. The best thing to do would be to go take down and par!@#$%^&*ion Pakistan now before they make more nukes and hope they don't launch them before we get there. India would be ecstatic to help us with an occupation with the 1.1 billion people to draw recruits from and we wouldn't even need to pretend we were trying to help them rebuild. Just do a hit and run and scare the !@#$%^&* out of little Kim in the process.

Funny thing here. On Christmas I watched shocked that they were showing m!@#$%^&* on 2 channels. They were literally just playing the mass not reporting on it. This was on channel 4 and 11 i believe so major channels here. I wasn't shocked at the m!@#$%^&* nor did I care that they were showing it. What I was shocked at was how much Christians like to !@#$%^&* about the censoring of their religion on Christmas. Should I !@#$%^&* about this being shown on TV? It'd be just as bad for me to do that as the way Christians do it all the time. The point I'm trying to make here is that while it's annoying when atheists pull this crap it's just as annoying when Christians do exactly the same thing and even more annoying because they act like they're the sole victims of it. All atheists complaining that there is too much religion in America and all Christians complaining that there is too much political correctness in America equally deserve to be shot because all they're doing is polarizing America with 2 choices when there really is the third choice of people who don't care either way. If we only let people make up their own minds instead of forcing 2 extreme alternatives down their throats maybe we wouldn't have neo cons capable of taking over the country at the expense of everyone else.

There's no reason helping the poor along means taking all of the money the rich have. There are lots of examples where this isn't true and you're characterizing only the most extreme case. You said: I take that as meaning coming from a poor, dysfunctional family should be motivation to do well in life. So let me get this straight. You want kids who have had a crappy upbringing to be smarter with their lives or otherwise it's their fault? It's also not a choice to all those religious mothers out there. Not sure how I came to defend the Christian right, but if they're going to get screwed by society for religious beliefs then I call foul. What you fail to understand is the 19 year old girl is going to have a !@#$%^&* hard time for her choices as it is and we don't need to trap her in unending poverty while we're at it. It's not like 1 girl is going to cost millions of people a lot the way you made it out to be. This seems to have derailed to a core ideological debate that has gone off topic from the thread.

If you're a 15 year old girl who's taught abstinence only policies and then woops that fails you then what? If you have kids then you and they should suffer with no possibility for improvement? Scandinavia not having large populations means their success is meaningless? The US has a per capita wealth higher than all of them except Norway so we actually DO have the resources to give Americans a better standard of living. The problem is we don't care to do so. The funny thing is we're now beat by France, with a GDP per capita (PPP) only 2/3 of ours and being #21 on the list of per capita GDP. Clinton increased military spending significantly once after constant reductions and that discredits the massive increases Bush has been as imaginary? This is ON TOP of the huge supplementals he gets every year for his "war on terror". The cost of the increase in military spending over time plus the supplementals gets to a good trillion and a half. Don't think that can account for quite a large chunk of the estimated 3 trillion dollar deficit increase under Bush? cost of tax cuts or here Add to that 2007 and suddenly you can get the picture that most of the deficit under Bush comes from 1)Military spending and the "War on Terror" and 2) Tax cuts. You can look more at the sources for tax cuts to see their comparison to spending on certain fields and what would be needed to finance them.

Generals ask for money? So? We ended the expensive Cold War and until Bush we were cutting military spending. Since Bush we have (on top of massive spending in war supplementals) been forced to double the military budget over time and the increases in spending are only rising. The use of all of that military equipment in the "War on Terror" is a large part of the increase. Bush's special relationship with the big business that runs the military-industrial complex is another. If you want to talk about a deficit that plus the tax cuts account for most of the rise in the deficit. Otherwise it'd be a manageable debt increase as we've been doing for years. It also doesn't take a genius to know that when you have massive military superiority already there's little you can do with more money. Only a political solution or a massive military campaign would win a guerrilla war. It's either that or go back to the colonial policies of the Europe to trick the enemy, but that's much harder today than it used to be. Well I didn't realize I'd need to prove that people in Scandinavian countries have a higher quality of life since it's common knowledge' date=' but heres some rankings. For Human Development we are number 12 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Human_Development_Index This is despite the fact that our per capita GDP (PPP) is 4th in the world ahead of almost all Scandinavian countries except for oil rich Norway http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_count...PPP)_per_capita

The idea is that homosexuality could be a genetic population cap to prevent overpopulation. Also, war back in the days of the cavemen was a disaster for the losers, but was essential for the growth of the winners. If you kill all the adult males in another group you can take the females and spread the genes of your clan as well as have those females to work for the survival of the tribe. Therefore, yes war is a survivalist trait. If it wasn't then there would be no carnivals to begin with as they took advantage of the peacefulness of other species to thrive.

It's the same situation as the teacher's unions. The NRA looks for bipartisan support and have a large base of followers willing to follow their word of who to vote for solely on that candidates stance on gun laws. Teachers do the same thing and that's why it's been impossible to p!@#$%^&* legislation fixing our education system because those measures would weaken the power and security of teachers. You're never going to get enough people to vote against candidates solely on whether they support guns because there simply is not nor will ever be enough shootings. Most people are just willing to accept a shooting per month as less important than other issues. You'd have to fundamentally change the nature of our democracy if you want anything to ever be done on this issue (or hope the supreme court does so undemocratically). Parliamentary systems have stronger built in controls against these problems since you vote for a party and not an individual and thus you avoid individual people willing to do anything for a victory, but don't expect that to ever happen here. If you can think of another way I'm all ears (or eyes since this is a forum).

What I don't understand is why Congress doesn't create a bill to ban certain chemicals in the cigarettes (other than tobacco) that are added by tobacco companies to make the cigarettes more addictive/more toxic. It'd be relatively easy to enforce since all these chemicals are added by a smaller number of large corporations and you can just sue them if they don't follow the rules. It'd also make quitting cigarettes easier and reduce the negative affects of those cigarettes on smokers who are basically being financially sacrificed for the sake of deterring future smokers in our system. Seems like a no brainer to me.

Productivity will never cap out? Is there going to be more hours in the day or are we going to invent a way to skip sleep then? People can't just work longer and longer to make up for debt. That's just not a sustainable policy. It also isn't a morally sound one. Why continue to force lower end people to work more and more just to make ends meet because we want to spend like mad without any concept of balance. There are lots of people, including all the rich billionaires who make their money off of investments. That is their income. I'll bring you back again to Warren Buffet the third richest man in the world. He pays about 18% in taxes on what he makes while average Joes pay 33%. How is that fair? The "tax cuts cultivate economic growth" !@#$%^&* just doesn't sell anymore. We have enough money in the US to take care of everyone quite well at this point. The problem is this obsession with tax cuts with this mythical claim of cultivating economic growth that has lead to spiraling debt. People invest in the US economy because of it's stability and because of high productivity. If they wanted to invest where it's cheap they'd go to China (and they do). Tax cuts aren't going to change that unless you're willing to scrap virtually all social services and remove the minimum wage requirement, but all that would lead to is extreme poverty. I know that's an extreme example, but that's essentially what the "tax cut" policy does to a first world country. It impoverishes the lower classes so that the elite can reap mammoth profits. As countries like the Scandinavian countries show, higher taxes don't mean poverty and high unemployment. Low taxes is a great way to build up an economy, but in case you haven't noticed we already have the biggest economy in the world and one of the highest per capita GDPs. Once you realize this you can start to question the true motives of these wealthy oriented tax cuts. While I agree that welfare spending should be reformed to serve more useful purposes and that will probably end up causing a cut I hardly think that is the first place to look when we have a completely pointless and incredibly expensive war in front of us. Considering the fact that hundreds of billions of dollars are spent on Iraq every year with no end in sight I hardly see it as a drop in the bucket.

In case you haven't noticed Americans already work very long hours on average so while we've been able to bark up that tree for a while to make up for irresponsible policies it isn't going to last forever. We also don't need to get rid of the debt persay. We just need to make sure it doesn't spiral out of control the way it's been going. We have 2 ways to fix the problem. We can end the costly and pointless imperialist venture in Iraq and we can also remove the pointless tax cuts for the rich. We could also fix the loophole where investors pay only half the taxes so the super rich like Warren Buffet actually pay at the very least their share. People like to talk about how this will hurt investment, but as Scandinavian countries show us while low taxes provide a way for those who can exploit the system to make a lot of money it's stability of the market that's the better long term strategy. We also have the huge dominance as the United States and giant market to make our country look VERY appealing. We can double our GDP, but all that won't mean !@#$%^&* if only the people on top see any of the extra money and they drive up the prices of products in the process.

Pot is a lot easier to grow than tobacco. You can grow pot like a garden plant. For tobacco you'd basically need to be a farmer.

The past 7 years have seen a stagnant middle to lower class while prices have skyrocketed. That just doesn't fit into our economic system so it's bound to fail eventually. What's going on now is nothing compared to what's going to happen at this rate. Essentially what's going to happen is when the disastrous economy catches up to us the lower and middle classes will pay for it while the upper classes remain aloof with all their money. There also is no second world since communism fell and that's what necessitated the "developed" and "developing" nations definitions.

The round ends when November 30th starts or when it ends?

true

Natural experiences don't necessarily have to directly result in child bearing. It happens naturally, but as long as heterosexuality happens more often and often enough it doesn't matter. Last time I checked we're overpopulating the planet and screwing it up massively and at the same time there are million and millions of kids with no one to turn to. Homosexuals provide a needed relief for adoption while at the same time not contributing to overpopulation (for the most part some can be artificially impregnated). If anything it's the people espousing birth control, abortions, and condoms are wrong and evil that are a threat to our society.

"Not some" means "none"? Wow I guess the dictionary is wrong. If you wanted to say a very small minority you'd say so. Since we're above this misunderstanding now, are you saying you meant "a very small minority"?

1 billion spy is rubbish if the enemy has even a fraction in mercenary. It takes practice to figure out even a rudimentary spy/sabotage skill and even then only aileron has the formulas and thus the ability to take out 8k from me even when I have #2 sentry (4.3 billion sentry) and since he's a cheater that of course is the focus of his entire strategy.

Oh oops I didn't even know you were on my clan. I generally consider the people who I don't know well and know are still playing as inactive farms (<3 animol). Won't happen again!

On this issue if you want to make the claim that homosexual parents would be worse than heterosexual parents you need proof. I don't need to find proof to disprove your claim. Of course my opinion on homosexual parents is an opinion too, but as long as you don't find proof for yours it is no more valid than mine. If you don't want to find proof for your claim there's no reason for you to do so, but if you try to p!@#$%^&* it off as a fact no one will buy it.

"Not some" doesn't mean "none". Seriously I think you're getting desperate here if you're trying to draw this conclusion out of nothing that there is somehow a contradiction. I never said none are lazy. I said the vast majority are not lazy. You make it out as if only a majority are not lazy. It is a huge majority that are not lazy. Again you seem to be having trouble with your definitions here.

That's when Muslims say Christianity is sinful the way Christians say homosexuality is sinful. Seems like there's been a waste of several posts solely on the fact that you're having trouble here.