AstroProdigy

And allowing the religious right more control would be the downfall of our democratic system. The system may have gone overboard in isolated cases, but the way Bush reverses things even creating an office of religion which would be STRICTLY FORBIDDEN by the founding fathers is disgusting. Not only that, but continuing that trend threatens to destroy our freedom of religion and with that comes less freedom overall. It is very well known that religious extremists are the WORST operators of democracy. What Christianity teaches evangelicals is that there is all powerful being that should be followed to the letter. If a leader claims to be a messenger of God (Bush) then you will see that group follow every single thing he says and try to claim even his most re!@#$%^&*ed actions as brilliance. Why do you think there's 30% of people who will continue to say Bush is a great president in every way and support him 100% no matter what. Imagine if the whole country was like that democracy would give way to a dictatorship in a day. If it's a choice between France styled more extreme secularism and a theocracy I'd choose the extreme secularism ANY day.

Sever your system is perfect for manipulation of the system and the creation of an ever shrinking aristocracy and thus is a perfect precursor to the rise of Marx's communist revolution.

I disagree bigtime. Moral standards may officially come with religion, but the same people who use religious rhetoric to control people conveniently forget the specific moral standards that don't suit them, like greed, ignore these standards. In fact they attack people who question corruption as heretics. The most religious societies are probably MORE corrupt than the secular ones since they use religion to cover up that corruption. Look at Saudi Arabia. They have huge oil resources, but the people are poor because the ruler uses religion to shut opposition and rape the land of its wealth for his own elites. People who don't believe in God go on to commit crimes because they fear nothing? If anything they fear man's law even more because they don't believe in God's law later on; you'd be surprised the way religious people can convince themselves that their crimes are righteous. I bet people who bomb abortion clinics believe they will be rewarded for it in the afterlife. The most secular societies are actually very stable and the problems they have come when religious extremists attack them for their secularism. Why would a government without religion remove religion? It's religious people who have a problem with people who don't agree. I wouldn't like to see an atheist in office either, but an agnostic would be amazing. Guaranteed doesn't persecute atheists doesn't persecute theists. A government that doesn't promote religion is almost the same as a government that bans religion in your mind? You're taking the right and putting it in the center while taking the center and putting it in the left here. I don't even want to know where you put the left. Your statements about the nature of Islam show you know absolutely nothing about Islam. The killing of innocent people as well as suicide bombings are strictly forbidden in Islam actually. It's self righteous religious people who believe their opinions are the only opinions that advocate these things. Christianity had the same problems in the past, but secularism has corrected mostly. What stops violence is education. Smart people don't do stupid things, but uneducated religious people not only do stupid things, they justify it with God. What would you do to Hindus who don't believe in a single God? Crucify them? What about atheists? They must believe in a God or else they must die? Do you have any proof that atheists have higher crime rates? I bet you they have lower crime rates because they tend to be the better educated group and education is what reduces crime NOT religion. You seem to forget that religious people are the ones always most willing to give up their rights (as they have very clearly shown with Bush) because they believe in an all powerful God who controls their lives so giving control of their life to someone else too seems like no problem. The funny part is religious people are literally raised to embrace a totalitarian government and act like they're the ones protecting democracy. HAH! Secularism and Democracy go hand in hand. There have been no religious societies that are also democratic. This contradicts itself. Secularism breeds democracy and democracy breeds secularism. It's a fact that secular societies tend to be freer than their neighbors. You can try to use Communism as a contradiction, but what communism does is replace religion with communism. It is simply a different religion. Most people target Christianity because it by far has the worst track record in human rights.

Greased doesn't have your babies. YOU HAVE GREASED'S BABIES!

When the President has an office of faith based initiatives then the separation of church and state has been violated. I'm all for religious historical symbols being preserved, but this is not the problem here. The problem is that what the Conservatives in the Republican Party want for the most part is a theocracy and to do this take smaller actions to change things more gradually. There actually is a real threat to the separation of church and state today.

Not as a single cohesive unit. That's a new one in Europe.

I never said par!@#$%^&*ion the whole Middle East. All I said was par!@#$%^&*ion Iraq and Afghanistan. Par!@#$%^&*ioning Iran would make a mess since it would force us to either par!@#$%^&*ion the whole Middle East or look like hypocrits. Not only that, but Shiites see a par!@#$%^&*ioning of Iran as unacceptable since Iran is the strongest supporter for Shia minorities. Not only that, but it would overly fragment the Middle East and ruin the par!@#$%^&*ioning of Afghanistan. The reason par!@#$%^&*ioning Afghanistan would be remarkably easy is that Turkmens, Uzbeks, Tajiks all have their ethnic kin in states surrounding Afghanistan that control their own people. The majority of Pashtuns are in Pakistan anyway, so giving the rest of the Pashtun land would be no big deal. The Shia Persians and Shia Hazara could fit much better in Iran than they would as a Shiite minority in Afghanistan. All that would be left is a multiethnic Kabul that Karzai already controls and can be a city state type of structure. This wouldn't even fragment any surrounding countries it would strengthen all of them. This would of course prompt calls for the much more violent Iraq to also be par!@#$%^&*ioned. The Shiite Arab state would be par!@#$%^&*ioned off easily and we would remain with a smaller number of troops. The Sunni Arab state would be a state we focus only on stability with and focus our efforts there. The Kurdish state would gladly par!@#$%^&*ion itself and is already de-facto independent on most issues. We would remain with a smaller contingent of troops there too and be greeted as liberators as the Kurds have always greeted us. If Turkey has a problem with this then tough luck. They are about the most useless ally we could have today. With any country with a Turkic minority Turkey would only pose a threat to stability and seeing as if we decided to invade Iran Turkey would only play a destructive role who needs them anyway? We can cut off the military funding we already give them and if they decide to try to invade Iraqi Kurdistan then we would annihilate their more outdated forces, par!@#$%^&*ion off Turkish Kurdistan and give some land back to the Armenians that they've been owed for decades now. The West would see us as finally backing the freedom and justice rhetoric and on top of that we would have an oil rich Kurdish ally that would replace Turkey as a true beacon of democracy in the Middle East. Look how much Albanians love us because of what we did in Kosovo. Now replicate that with a much larger and more geographically significant ally with oil resources and you have Kurdistan.

Call it SSC No Pop For Completely Unoriginal Zones CTF. Are you ThunderJam? No? Then why would you make a paintball zone? Think of something original or at least not a rip off of an idea that hasn't even worked for the creator.

Really? I thought he was much more moderate.

I already have it all thought out how it would go down, but I'd like to hear your opinions.

Pot; another solution to video games. Who's going to frantically bang on their keyboard or controller when they're too lazy to?

Just get those nerdy kids laid. Then when they realize that they're spending their time playing video games instead of %@$#ing problem solved.

Addictive drugs actually change your brain chemistry to force you to keep taking the drugs while damaging your brain, whereas video games are played to fill a void that is often created in our modern society. That's why video games addiction cannot be considered a health disease because while I used to be addicted to video games when I went to college and got a life I quit them for the most part and there is no every day battle with video game addiction as I would have if I became addicted to and quit a drug.

Of course it's not our problem. There is plenty of blame to go around and most of it goes to Europe. It still doesn't change the fact that from a MORAL standpoint only we should have entered the war earlier. We can't take an isolationist policy. While we give poor African countries aid we also dump our leftover agricultural products there at extremely cheap prices and destroy their economies. To take a half !@#$%^&*ed isolationist policy of only destroying economies instead of some help then we will be further hated. To take a full isolationist policy would greatly weaken our own economy and lead us to be stagnant. The problem is today we are part of the problem. We have done more to destabilize the Middle East than any other country so after 8 years of !@#$%^&*forbrains we need a brilliant strategist to run the country and try to salvage the damage; not run away.

We could have entered the war 3 years before when Europe was gripped in the war. It wouldn't have been during the appeasement of Germany then. I agree that the political situation for us to do so was very lax so we invaded when we had an overwhelming mandate to do so. That being said millions of people died because we waited. Sever wants an isolationist policy now because we are the villains of the story today. After what we pulled in Iraq no one trusts us anymore. I disagree that a strongly isolationist policy would fail, but I could see how it would be better now than it had been during world war 2. The American people were against the war before pearl harbor, but that just shifts the blame of the deaths of millions of people due to our delay on the people. Democracy isn't perfect after all; (election of Hamas and other extremists worldwide COUGH Bush COUGH). Iraq could have been won with a competent president despite the false pretenses for war. We had the opposite and that's why it was such an utter failure.

AMEN! LOL at "you people". If Sever has repeated anything about himself the most its that he is an avid atheist. Atheist does not equal satanist. In fact atheists are anti satanist seeing as that's another religion. Just because the undisciplined people fighting the wars can follow their own interests doesn't mean that when the pope calls to Christians to fight for God that this isn't a holy war. It's true that it was to a great extent caused by a knight class bored and looking for glory' date=' but otherwise it was a holy war that was fought by Catholic Christians to convert "heathens". All wars are more complicated and a single cause is almost never the sole reason for a war, but Christianity and the resulting anti-non Christianity has influenced the fighting of many wars and has been the excuse for countless atrocities. Engineering and technology are byproducts of science.

I use Facebook. The stalking features are amazing.

If so then how can i go collect the insurance without getting up?

Come on it's world war 2. That's easily the most justified war we've ever fought. The Nazis were the closest thing you will ever find to evil. We had no place in that war even if all of Europe, Africa, and Asia was turned into an enemy? Iraq wasn't invading our allies when we attacked. In fact we attacked them when they were invading one; Kuwait. Politically speaking we were in a depression at that point and further cutting off our trade with a Nazi Europe would have made things worse for us. That's plenty political reason on top of the loads of moral reasons.

I don't think we should try to explain why Al Qaeda does what it does. It really is run by fanatics looking to turn the world into a caliphate. They hate America because Saudi Arabia rejected Osama bin Laden's offer to send his guys over to fight Saddam Hussein and instead allowed the "infidel" America to come on "holy" soil instead.

Exactly why someone like Bloomberg would be your best bet for fixing the problem. Unlike Bush he ACTUALLY knows how to run a business and shows his skills in New York City already. Bloomberg ftw. China's economic model would hardly be applicable to the US unless you would like to reverse the upward trends of the US economy and turn it more into a pre World War 1 US economy. China follows its model, but at some point that model will become counter productive to further growth and they'll need to follow western models. We have long been past the need to industrialize our country so why are we following models that take us backwards; because the intelligence of Americans has greatly deteriorated by laziness and they decided that Bush would do anything, but demolish the country.

Send back 11 million people to a country that can't support them and you'll have Mexico destabilized and much bigger problems will follow. Besides I thought the US was a nation of immigrants? M!@#$%^&* immigration has happened many times. Why not help Mexico modernize as fast as possible so there's no longer a reason for m!@#$%^&* immigration? Sending 11 million people back will not only be extremely difficult, but would likely destabilize the region and create even more illegal immigration. What are we going to do then? Genocide? Conservatives never bother to think of the repercussions of their actions on others do they?