Aileron

Well, since its just a forum rpg, there are no stats and there really aren't distinct differences between the choices. I only put that in because in the past people got a little weird...(including myself who decided to be a blob of nanobots one time) The real strength is how creative you are with your choices...barring creativity I'd just recommend a pure human just to avoid nasty suprises. Its seems we have enough players to move foward...I'll start the thread some time this week.

What? Shooting infected birds with AK-47s? What's wrong with that methods of quarentine? Sure its more firepower than needed, but infected birds need to be destroyed and the methods really doesn't matter as long as its practical.

Beef > Chicken...though venison pwns all farmed meat. I'm not so sure the media's motivation to sensationalise doesn't go beyond simple greed. I am beginning to think that the industry has in addition gotten so high on that "pen is mightier than the sword" crap that they believe that they need to push an agenda instead of observe and broadcast information...or maybe pushing an agenda is just more profitable for them. Well, since everyone agrees on this topic...I'd like to point out that sometimes pandemics are a real possibility and measures need to be taken...not in this particular case, but... As for bringing the focus away from more serious conditions like HIV and cancer, I'd think we wouldn't have to do so. We could just take the resources that are devoted to the development of drugs that make old men horny and devote those resources to developing a cure for avian flu.

Well, I agree that it does seem to have a bit of liberal bias, but that is indeed mostly due to both the Republicans being dominant as well as the Democratic Party's complete and total lack of leadership and a policy. Its simply impossible to poke fun of someone who doesn't have a plan. I usually don't watch that show though...I like to stick to Sci-Fi and Discovery Channel.

This is an old irrelevent off-topic point, but I feel I can't let this one go. I cannot, i just don't believe in absolutes. When you said "There is not a single thing he ever said that wasn't out of hatred and powerlust", I just coudn't believe that, i don't think his marriage was out of either of those things.... to say what you said he'd have to be devil. That marriage was out of powerlust. I forget the woman's name, but she wasn't part of the Nazi party. She wasn't responsable for the holocaust nor World War II. The allies weren't coming after her, and if they captured her by accident they would have let her go within a day. She had no reason to kill herself. That act was not out of love. If Hitler loved her he would have persuaded her to leave and find a new live. He wanted to ~posses~ her and take her to his grave. Hitler isn't the devil. He was a human like you or I, and that's scary. Any one of us has just as much capacity for evil, and most who turn to it don't turn back. Its just foolish to think they will spontaneously turn around until one sees evidence of it. Astro...did I ever claim that all conservative politicians are flawless individuals? I support them overall even though I don't agree with every little action they do, mostly because its a two-party system and the alternatives are no-policy democrats. And don't you dare claim my mile-long over-analyzed posts have no proof. Actually the old-age occupation method is actually what we need to do. We do need to silence the Islamic Fundimentalist voice in Iraq and Afghanistan and replace it with our own propaganda, which is that the Middle East must move out of the dark ages and learn to live with the rest of the world. And...that point about supplying our enemies is a great example of why I think nations should be carefull about cooperating with other nations, and illustrates my point of why I didn't see any good in Hamas until they started taking steps. It is foolish to trust the untrustworthy. They should prove themselves an ally or atleast not an enemy before they should be treated as an ally or atleast not an enemy.

Actually nothing is really going wrong with the occupation of Iraq...occupations always take a long time and its still only been 4 years. I mean, traditionally occupations need to take about 20 years, so as to train the next generation not to cater to extremism. In this case we are doing this the smart way actually. We are training an Iraqi army that will probably be fit to take over at about the fifth aniversary and take the rest from there. As for Israel and Palistine, its official. In the back of the newspaper behind all that other garbage news is something Earth-Shattering. Hamas has officially urged Palistinians not to carry out terrorist activities against Israel. Now I officially admit that there may be some tiny speck of good in Hamas now that there is actually evidence that supports that opinion. We'll wait in see if terrorist activities actually stop. Actually Astro, what you described is one of the Ten Commandments "Thou shalt not use the name of thy God in vain." Usually this is interpreted in the way of "don't swear", though the more important interpretation is "don't appoint yourself as an evangical...if you are qualified God will appoint you." Conservative politicians aren't really as bad as the media acts like they are really. Certainly not any worse that Hillary Clinton on that immigration debate.

Actually that's where denomination comes in. Most of the right-wingers are of the Calvinist-offshoot denominations that got kicked out of Europe first. Their belief system is slightly different, suffice to say they don't believe in that particular philosophy and thus cannot be hypocrits by not following a philosophy they don't agree with. Catholics like myself usually run somewhere in the middle, opposing abortion and homosexuality, yet also supporting distribution of wealth and equal rights for all races. I run a little to the right for I don't know what reason. Probably because a lot of people here are to the left and I like to argue, or maybe some subconcious desire to balance out unbalanced evironments. Actually come to think of it, my opinion is not hypocritical. You are supposed to forgive, but you aren't expected to do so until they stop doing it. Basically, after the Palisitinians stop blowing up civilians, then I'll start looking for good in them. I know criminal behavior because I've worked in a hospital and seen them do this first hand. I've seen the victims and seen the criminals, and I know by now one from the other. In reality, there's probably dozens of other methods to get 'their territory back' that doesn't involve attacking Israel's civilian population directly, most of the other methods actually being more effective to their supposed goal. Its a fallicy to think that Hamas is down to the last option when choosing terrorism. There are plenty of other methods both in peace and war. Admittingly those methods aren't as easy, but all wrong behavior is a method that is easier than the right behavior for the perpetrator, but has a cost paid by somebody else. Its just that based on all of it, the behavior of other theocrist muslim countries such as Iran, the methods Hamas uses, and my own personal experience dealing with people who think just like this, that acquisition of territory is only Hamas' secondary goal, and their primary goal is to kill off every Israeli citizen, man, woman, and child. Actually this entire arguement is irrelevent. The withdrawel from the Gaza Strip was part of a deal. Israel gave up the Gaza Strip, Palistine gave up terrorist activities. If terrorist activities resume unchecked and on a large scale Israel should re-take the Gaza Strip, regardless of demographics of the region. Peace can only be obtained if both sides stay true to their word. It is never going to work if one side keeps breaking promises. Eventually the other side will simply stop coming to the table.

Look, the reason I believe in absolutes actually runs opposite to my being a Christian. The Christian opinion is "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." I've pointed this out before...I'm not a very good Christian. The reason I believe is absolutes is because I've seen it. I've seen, for example, the battered wives of husbands who beat their wives. It is only out of a combination of fear and naive stupidity that there is good in the husband that the wife continues to stick around and get beat again. And there never is any good in the husbands who beat their wives. They almost always repeat their behavior over and over again until for some reason they are ~unable~ to do it any more. (ie. the wife finally leaves or is beaten to death.) And the killer is the husband always has something that in his mind is a justification for beating his wife. Either she didn't cook and clean properly or she looked at him some way or he thought she was messing around or something along those lines. Almost all other criminals do the exact same kind of behavior no matter if its petty burglary (the excuse is "he has so much money he should share it") to murder (actually I haven't seen a murderer first-hand yet...but I haven't read or heard a second hand account of a murderer who didn't regret his actions until after spending X many years in jail.) The stranger thing yet is in our modern culture they like to play the victim. Usually how it goes down is a police officer spots the criminal, moves in to arrest the criminal, the criminal runs away or fights, the police officer has to tackle the criminal and force the restraints on him. Then the criminal turns around and pulls an act on how injured he was when the police officer used appropriate force on him. The criminal is then sent to the hospital, where, at public expense mind you, his "injuries" are tested and exposed as bogus. I guess supposedly there are cases where the injuries are real, but I've never seen one. This isn't to say the justice system is flawed or anything...its just to point out how a criminal mind thinks. I mean, I'd like to believe that there's some small kernel of good in these people, but there either just isn't or such cases are so rare that I've never seen one. Suffice to say the vast majority of the time those who commit such actions do so because they do not even recognize the humanity of others. Judging from my experiences, Al Queda and Hamas are following the exact same line of behavior, with indeed no sign in sight of them actually stopping to commit murder and with their petty justification for it, and with their suddenly playing the victim when the situation doesn't look so good for them. I mean, take this situation from another point of view. I can't imagine telling a whole country to pack up and move to a different part of the world because their neighbors are insulted by their "holy land" being occupied by another religion. Oh wait...now I can prove Bush is a moderate...the withdrawel from the Gaza Strip was Bush's idea!!!! He actually agrees with you ppl on this subject apparently. I mean, the "Roadmap for Peace" program is something I think is naive and left-wing, because it calls for the exact same thing you ppl call for...Israeli concessions.

Well, the problem here is people read indirect sources instead of watching Bush's speeches directly. A recent example might illustrate what I'm trying to point out. On the last Earth Day, I watched a live speech President Bush gave on C-span. The speech was in general about how he was sending funds to the development of hydrogen powered vehicles. Then, a week later, I pick up the USA Today, which cited editorials from several newspapers. Those editorials were in response to gas prices, and criticised Bush for not promoting the development of alternatives to gasoline, such as hydrogen powered vehicles for example. Now since most people don't watch live speeches, (I rarely do myself) most people will believe that Bush doesn't promote Hydrogen Fuel Cell research. The problem is that most people don't cite the primary source. Even the press, people who are supposedly professionals who's full-time job is to do this stuff, don't cite the primary source. Bush said that this was going to be a long drawn out war, but the secondary sources didn't carry that part on. Bush gave about a dozen reasons, rangeing from how just stopping Hussein's genocide would save lives and how a democracy in Iraq would change the middle eastern political landscape, but the secondary sources only remembered WMDs. I can't prove Bush is a moderate, but I can prove that the opposing viewpoint is ridiculously left-wing. First off, I'll point out that Karl Marx was radically left wing. Anyone who thinks Marx was a moderate will not agree with this arguement, but I'll venture to say that any such person is just...lost. In the Communist Manifesto, Marx cited that the reason for all wars was to acquire land and business opportunities to further the capitalist agenda. This is the general opinion of a left-winger on the subject. If you look at the really old history of Israel and Palestine, it is filled with a lot of religious and racial wars. If you look in the more recent history of the conflict, there was a time when a lot of Middle Eastern countries allied with Palistine in a failed attempt to attack Israel, despite the fact that not one of those Arab countries would have acquired land or business opportunities even if victorious. When Israel conceeded some land necessary for Palistine to have a port on the Mediterranian, Palistine acquired business opportunity and thus no longer would have a need for conflict according to the theory, implying that the war would either end or diminish. However, the war continued and in fact escalated. If you look at Hamas today, they talk a lot about destroying Israel rather than "getting back our land." If you look at Iran today, they talk about destroying Israel, despite the fact that there is no way for Iran to acquire the land (it would go to Palistine.), and doing so would result in a ~loss~ of business opportunities because of the likely UN sanctions its about to get for its nuclear weapons program. According to what Hamas and Iran does, this is a racial/religious conflict. According to what Hamas and Iran says publicly this is a racial/religious conflict. According to the economic damages both Palistine and Iran will suffer by continuing this conflict, there is no profit motive here and this isn't a capitalistic conflict. And after all that evidence stating the opposite, many come to the conclusion that Karl Marx came to and that the cause of this war is land and profit motive. Is Bush a moderate here? All we know is that his opinion is consistent with the evidence on this matter. He could have very well have cone to this conclusion for entirely the wrong reasons. However, as for his opponants who came to the ~wrong~ conclusion and defend the wrong conclusion despite the overwhelming evidence that the cause of the Israeli-Palistinian conflict is idealogical, those people are indeed left-wing. In fact, anyone who thinks that Palistine only wants land is officially a Marxist locally to this particular issue. (SeVeR actually is a flat-out Marxist on all issues...just stating the facts, not meant as any insult really.)

Sorry, I got my p-stans crossed. The Pakistanis do not deserve those remarks in the slightest. But that land never belonged to Palistine at any time in history. The Turks conquered both Palistine and Israel, and over time the collective territory kept switching hands from empire to empire until it wound up in British hands, and Britain gave Israel back to the Jews and Palistine back to Palistinians. The strange part is that the Jews moved to Europe while their territory was conquered whereas the Palistinians stayed put, and the Palistinians somehow !@#$%^&*umed that since they didn't see any Jews any more that they somehow walked off the edge of the planet and that both territories should be given to Palistine. This war has been going on for 60 years. People don't fight for 60 years over a territorial dispute. Its much deeper than who owns the land and everyone knows it. When Hamas publicly states that their foreign policy is to eradicate Israel, why do people think they are lying? Do you think its impossible for a group of people to be racist and genocidal? My point Astro is that the US is following the Geneva conventions. If we weren't we would be fire-bombing civilians because at this point in time it would make our lives easier. It was more to SeVeR in that he should stop claiming the US is doing all these human rights violations when we aren't, because if we did there would be several cities on fire right now. Bush is a moderate...its not his fault his critics are mostly Marxists who think everything to the right of socialism is fundimentalist. Cheney and Rumsfeld are indeed true right-wingers though. No one has any real dissagreement with any of Bush's policies except one decision he made. Public support for Iraq sickens me though. Before the war 70% of Americans supported it and 30% opposed it. Now 30% support it and 70% oppose it. I am one of the 30% who supported the war throughout, and I can understand the 30% who opposed it from day one...they thought the cost wasn't worth the benefit, which is understandable logic. Who I don't get is the 40% who changed sides. Did they honestly expect the thing to last a week, no one would die, and that the world would be bright and cheerfull by Christm!@#$%^&*? Bush knew this was going to be a lengthy occupation. He pointed that out numerous times in his speeches that both the War on Terror and the War in Iraq were going to be long and people would need to be resolved in their choices. The problem is that people don't listen to Presidential speeches, they watch CNN for the short version. I don't blame Bush. I blame that shortshighted 40% who somehow thought that wars have no middle. I guess the good news for Bush is that the 40% will mostly forget the middle ever happened and will suddenly swing back to supporting the war once this thing is over.

That is a flawed analogy. England is a sovereign country. Pakistan is not, and it has been centuries since there was a sovereign country Pakistan. Ironically, the holder of the territory was Great Britain. They acquired the land from the Ottoman Empire when it collapsed. I'm not sure when exactly the Ottomans conquered the territory but that was atleast 600+ years ago. That territory does not belong to Pakistan and it never did. They !@#$%^&*umed Great Britain would give them land which did not belong to them. What they want is whatever land the jews occupy. We could move the Jews to Africa or South America, or set a friggin colony on the Moon for them, and Pakistan would demand whatever territory the jews have and would send suicide bombers in space shuttles if they had to. Why? Because they consider the Jews their mortal enemies and consider it righteous to kill their mortal enemies. They use land as an excuse when in reality is that they have enough and if they focused their economy on acquiring wealth instead of killing their neighbors they would be as prosperous as anyone right now. I mean, they elected Hamas. "Domestic policy" or not, that should tell you what their mainstream intentions are. They have engrained anti-semitism in their very culture. Until this culture is changed or nuetralised, any prospects of peace are naive. Only free-thinkers want peace, and Pakistan doesn't have free-thinkers. This is off topic though. This topic is supposed to be about Bin Laden. I just find it strange how people will take every opportunity they can to criticise Bush, the man we elected as leader as our country, but look for every excuse they can find to explain the actions of Bin Laden, the man who wants every single one of us dead. Is it suicidal or just plain stupid? A man who convinces his underlings to blow themselves up in order to kill their enemy cannot have a "live and let live" at!@#$%^&*ude. The average Joe-Jihadist would rather die than let his neighbors live, a fact proven by the definition of "suicide-bomber". If they don't value their life, then what could we possibly conceed to them that they would want? And you know what? I'm sick of people claiming that the US and Bush violates human rights so often. Bush could defeat Hamas and Al-Queda tomorrow if he wanted to. All it would take is to start fire-bombing civilian targets, and suddenly the reality of the Jihad they are fighting would hit home and Hamas and Al-Queda would lose all the support they have. For those who think this would enbolden our enemies, the evidence suggests that they were enboldened in the past Israeli conflicts by territorial concessions and made peace when they were suffering losses. Free-thinking nations are sometimes enboldened by civilian losses, but when a backwards nations start suffering losses it causes the populace to start questioning their leadership. There's a lot to compaire modern day Al-Queda with WWII Japan in terms of the type of tactics they use...Al Queda probably would respond to the same kind of 'diplomacy' Japan responded to. The only reason the US ~doesn't~ fire-bomb civilians is because the US ~doesn't~ violate human rights, because otherwise we would have a heck of a good reason to.

Yes the US applied considerable diplomatic power, but it was still the UN who agreed to it. The Jewish homeland had to come from somewhere...it is only appropriate that that land is their historic homeland. Muslims control a continent's worth of territory. They have more than enough room to grow and prosper without that tiny stretch of territory east of the Mediterranian. And again you go with the personal attack. If you can name a single good thing Hitler did after he rose to power, please go ahead and point it out. Unless the US brainwashed children to strap bombs to themselves and blow up buses full of civilians I think we are clear in the human rights department.

Had to make this personal as usual, eh? It was the UN, not the US, who created Israel. Jews have a right to life and a need for a homeland. If reconizing that human beings have a right to life and that Jews are human beings makes one a zionist, then anyone who isn't a zionist should be made to change their minds or be killed outright. That is not an unreasonable opinion - our universe will never be big enough to tolerate those who cannot respect the fundimental rights of others. The only way the world will ever have peace is if everyone has a "live and let live" mindset. Hitler was a liar, a murderer, and a madman. There is not a single thing he ever said that wasn't out of hatred and powerlust. I didn't suggest "put a muzzle on the Democrats". I suggested that the Democrats volunteer to accept the responsability that comes with their position of power and wield their freedom of speech accordingly.

I've just thought of something interesting about the video clip Bin Laden released. In it, he called Bush a Zionist crusader who was waging war against all of Islam. Clearly Bin Laden, the man who started this "Jihad" against the "infidels" is the last person to talk about religious tolerance. He is clearly a hypocrite, but that is beside the point. The point is further than that - that Jihadists are incapable of thinking that way. Bin Laden only thinks in the way of Muslims vs. Christians. He doesn't belief the two groups can live in harmony and thinks peace will only come when one group kills or converts the other. The only difference between a Jihadist and a Crusader is that one is Muslim and the other Christian. The only criticism of the Crusader that the Jihadist would ever come up with is that the Crusader is Christian. All other aspects of the Crusader are akin to the Jihadist. In this situation a Jihadist would criticise Bush for being Christian, or for NOT being violently zealous. The Jihadist, who is himself violently zealous and thinks that Muslims and Christians will always be at war, would understand, nay, expect violent zeal from his opponant. So, if this isn't something Bin Laden thought of himself, where did he get it? Probably from the dozens of Liberals who called Bush a Zionist Crusader. The Democrats are effectively running Bin Laden's propaganda campaign. The Democrats must learn that they are part of the American leadership and are responsable for what they say. If you look at Bush's outlook on Iraq, its clearly the most bright and chearfull portrayal of the situation. Liberals critise this action by Bush because they !@#$%^&*umed Bush was unintelligent a long time ago and think that he doesn't know the situation. Ofcourse Bush knows better than anyone what's going on in Iraq! He is the President...he's one of the first people to get the casualty lists. He however, portrays the positive because that's what good leaders do. He needs to portray the positive to give our soldiers the psychological edge they need to fight. Similarly, the Democrats should put politics aside for the greater good of the country during wartime and stop feeding Bin Laden the material he needs to give his troops the psycological edge to fight. Yes, for them to stop berating Bush would hurt their poll numbers, but Bush sacrificed his poll numbers for the good of the country, so the Democrats should be expected to as well. They need to stop calling a Bush a Zionist Crusader so that next time Bin Laden speaks he trips over his own nature and cause his followers to wake up and abandon the Jihadist cause.

Yeah, I guess there's little difference between us. You say regulate them, I say that we need to remove some of the legal perks they get due to how the laws are written. My other personal opinion is that there should be a maximum wage, which no one's fixed income can exceed. If this was proposed the lobbyists would come out in full force to stop it. The way to get it passed is to tack on a proposal to increase congress' wages to this maximum and then no lobbyist in the world could stop the bill. Not only would this bring about minor corporate reform, but it would bring about major political reform since business leaders will make just as much money running for office. The next term all the good business leaders would run for congress, and many would be voted in. Business leaders are just as greedy and full of $#!7 as congressmen, but atleast business leaders know how to balance a budget, make profit, and make the shareholders happy. Also I think that stock options should just flat out be eliminated...employees should be paid in CASH. Admittingly upper executives can make a killing off stock options, but the difference is it is their job to watch the stocks, within their power to affect how the stock prices change, and they have money to invest in the first place. In the meantime and barring any major legal reform, what needs to happen is for student just out of college to apply for CEO positions at the bid of $40,000 a year, pointing out that while they aren't as smart as the CEO with the billion dollar salary, all they have to do is make sure their mistakes cost less than a billion dollars and the company would profit.

Oh, forgive me for !@#$%^&*uming you were on topic then Ducky.

The crucifiction occurred just after a passover, so if Easter is an offshoot of anything its an offshoot of passover. passover was started by the Iraelites just as they left ancient Egypt. That makes passover too old to be an offshoot of any known holiday...though they do celebrate passover by slaughtering lambs admittingly, so I guess it could be construed as a springtime harvest festival. Lent is certainly not though...it doesn't go at all in line with what an agricultural society would have that time of year. And...why are you upset over the loss of 2000 year forgotten holidays? Its not like you were around to remember any of them.

That's Thanksgiving fool. Harvest holidays occur in the fall. No farming society celebrates winter. Nor do they celebrate spring, because they don't have food to do it and they have a lot of planting to do. Before Easter there was passover, which was NOT due to coincidence, for the whole reason they went to Jerusalem in the first place was to celebrate passover. passover was started by the Israelis in the time and place of ancient Egypt. What the Egyptians may or may not have celebrated is practically pre-history, so consult an Anthropologist. I guess it is possible that Easter could theorhetically be a modification of some strange ancient Egyptian springtime festival (they had unorthodox growing seasons, so they might have celebrated spring), but its not even probabable, and certainly not likely enough for you to make that claim.

Actually that should be irrelevant to the problem. Any irresponsable behavior is good enough to fire someone. Suffice to say that if there is a reason to fire a young person, that will be the grounds needed in the present system. For example, if the employee is always late for work, the employer can fire him and claim "He was always late for work." An addition to include anyone under 26 only helps those who wish to downsize, in which case they should be on their own.

There is no true historical example of any religion imposing itself on others. All such cases that look as such were from secular groups who somehow hijacked the local religion to support their own ends...even the Crusades were little more than the secular nobles hijacking religion so that they could conquer a spot of land for their younger sons to inherit. I for one don't view religion as weakening. I go to church every Sunday, and attendance is rather constant in my family from generation to generation. What I see happening is that many of the smaller Christian denominations are weakening, but the Catholic Church is growing dramatically, not by baptism as much as by conversion. Basically the small denominations are being absorbed by the athiests on one side and the Catholics on the other. This is in the end a good thing, because the problems that caused the schisms in Christianity in the first place have long since been solved. As for Happy Easter...its proper ettiquite as long as the reciever celebrates Easter...the background of the sender is irrelevent. The proper response to a Jewish person is "Happy passover", because theorhetically the Jews celebrate passover the Thursday before Easter.

Maybe, though I doubt you could find many people that would consider a naked giant wandering around ejaculating on everything to be 'serious'. A clothed giant* that behaves in a relatively normal fashion would be acceptible, though I'd insist on stating a specific weight (1500 lbs is more or less proportional for that height) as well as height and such a build would have penalties. (most NPCs would flee on sight, cannot wield weapons or pilot ships due to controll mechanisms being too small, absolutely no capacity for sneaking around in normal environments, requires proportionally large amounts of food, water, and air, cannot go through normal doors, transport between planets severly limited due to the requirement that the giant would need to be shipped inside a huge cargo freighter, which by the way needs to be piloted, and finding a pilot is difficult because the NPCs flee on sight, etc.) * He could at very least find a large tarp to cover himself in, and if he's that famous, clothing companies would probably taylor something specifically for him...it would make a 50 ft walking billboard. I guess what I'm really asking is to keep this thread appropriate for kiddies, obey the Laws of Physics, and pretend NPCs have a mind of their own. Do that and your choice will probably be allowed, though its your fault if the penalties you suffer get you killed or render you unable to do anything.

Personally I don't think Karl Marx ever wanted Communism to succeed on the sub-concious level...he never really tried to see beyond the "revolution" stage. He envisioned a communist revolution, but only made a half hearted attempt at the communist government to replace the ousted one. He wrote about abolishing this and abolishing that, but never about setting up something. His ideas were flawed not on the real-world but on the theorhetical level. To use a literary example, its the difference between Robin Hood and Zorro. Both fought against the establishment, but the difference between them is that Robin Hood thought that King Richard should rule England. Without hard ideas about what the new society should be like, a revolution is doomed to only replace a slightly flawed system with a completely corrupt one. But Monte, those of the benefits of a big company vs a small one. There's not really a problem with big companies. The problem is corporations vs. private enterprise. They are structured differently. Admittingly the problem with private companies is that there's no way for one person to am!@#$%^&* enough money to start a major business, and inheritence is determined by whoever the previous owner wants it to go to, rather than who is the most qualified. I think that despite these flaws there needs to be legal changes in corporate definition to make it more like a private company. These are not "regulations" because of what corporations are. Corporations have a strange status of quasi-personhood. They are considered to be their own en!@#$%^&*y and not a collection of property that somebody owns. Stocks in corporations are bought daily, leaving ownership and thus accountability very fluid. This needs to be slowed down by changing the legal definition of corporation to something that puts more responsability on the owners.

Well, you usually need a job before you can go to college, so most of those who are under 25 don't have a college degreee ~yet~. Besides, the !@#$%^&*umption is that they are already working...students don't count towards the statistic. As for older people retiring, I'm not saying its that easy. All I'm saying is that if there is one job and two applicants, one old, one young, the job should go to the young person. Forgive my harshness here, but the destiny of the old is to only grow older and die. The young however need jobs to gain experience so that they can develop into better workers. And I know quite a few retired persons who only work out of boredom. Well, France is a socialist country. While I don't agree with socialism, I will say that as long as socialism is the economic system, they should make having a job a right, because that is a facet of socialism. I think employers should always have a right to fire employees who are not doing their job, but if the economic system is socialism, then the employers are gaining certain benefits, and the caveat of those benefits is that they have limitations in what they are allowed to do.

We still need two more people to sign up. Any and all who are interested, sign up please. If you have already signed up, please beat up some defenseless nooblet and force him to sign up to this.

I didn't call it a civil war, I just pointed out that some democracies seem to get by without ever needing violence. And I didn't claim protesting was wrong or that there isn't a difference between rioting and protesting...all I said was that rioting was wrong. This bill was definitely worth a protest. The true problem though is literally right in front of me. I'm cheap, so I buy those generic BIC brand mechanical pencils that cost about a dollar for 15. I've been using them for years, so I remember that there's always used to be the "FRANCE" inscribed on the colored clip thing that always falls off. I look at the pack that I just bought, and it says "MEXICO" on the side. Globalization is causing the outsourcing of unskilled labor. Skilled labor stays in developed countries, and its the unskilled labor that gets outsourced. France has as much of the same problem with outsourcing as anyone. This is affecting youths more because youths are unskilled labor. The first solution to this problem is to get old people out of the workplace. In particular, those people who have skills, but retired and now work at the supermarket. Young people simply cannot compete on paper with someone who has 40 years of working experience. Retired people should be retired. When I'm old and grey, I sure as !@#$%^&* won't work at a supermarket just out of boredom. I will go fishing every day, and if my joints get out of whack I'll play shuffleboard or chess or something. Governments should make steps to make sure that retired persons stay retired and don't take the jobs of young persons. The long term solution involves college tuition though. While developed countries cannot compete with undeveloped countries in unskilled labor, they dominate in skilled labor. Generally, if you live in a first world country and don't want your job outsourced or replaced by a robot, you need a college degree. The problem is that college is so !@#$%^&* expensive now that its difficult to pay for. Another problem is colleges are convinced they need to eliminate certain percentages of students in order to !@#$%^&*ure that the remainder are intelligent. College Degrees don't indicate intelligence, they indicate knowledge. If the student knows the relevent information, he should get the degree. Let employers worry about having the absolute brightest bulb in the bunch if they want that.