Aileron

I don't like the idea of regulations. Lawyers can find loopholes in them. People can choose simply not to follow them. Or, people can push the line. Something stronger than regulations should be implaced. Fortuneatly we have something. Psycologists have done studies on twins seperated at birth, and found that about 50% of a person is genetics, 50% the environment. Thus, to get the 180 IQ, they not only have to enhance the baby but nurture the child, hoping that they can controll every element of this upbringing which they clearly can't. Also, the technology is very very far from this being cost-effective enough to impliment. Ofcourse, you must realise that we are already manipulating the gene pool. People choose their mates very carefully, so people with good qualities have an easier time producing children than people lacking them. The point is natural childbirth has its own installed system of this, and it costs a lot less.

Its better.

That's just shear arrogance. Am I to take it most terrorists are Buddhists from Japan? This is a very good article, and wasn't even made by an American. How about instead of looking for reasons not to read it, you instead give it the benefit of the doubt, read it, and grow some new brain cells?

You STILL haven't cited a reason you hate Bush, you just named policy differences. Did he come to your house and give you a wedgie? Did he 5-0 you in a duel and say "OWNED" afterwards? Is Bush distributing emabarr!@#$%^&*ing photographs of you?

No, excuse = rationalization. There's a subtle but very important difference A reason is something offerred inductively starting with raw facts and ending at a previously unknown conclusion. Excuses and rationalizations result when somebody starts with a conclusion and works his way backwards. Basically, the way this arguement went about is that they started with "we don't want a group of Catholics in our neighborhood" and ended with "ah, we can keep them out by saying they violate the zoning code". If they were using reason, their logic would have started with the building code, and ended with a variety of options. And, yes, throughout this whole topic I've been rationalizing myself...it IS a very easy trap to fall into and does of the potential of making sound arguements.

Its a shame you won't really. I for one always read any good liberal articles I can find, because it challenges my own beliefs and betters my arguements. Unwillingness to read an intellectual article (if its a flaming emotionalist, that's different) is only a sign of weakness.

You fool! This forum turned around as of yesterday. Show a little patience, will ya?

Sam, so Kerry is in fact as right-wing as Strom Thurmond and that the "Bush controlled" media just spinned it that way? Kerry is left wing...and whether or not he is moderately left wing or on the edge of communism is besides the point. The point of my statement is that I respect the man, just don't like the policy. The people who hate Bush hate the man and only disagree with the policy because the man supports it. This thread isn't about classical political issues, so I'll leave those comments as they stand. If anyone wishes to discuss abortion, gay marriage, etc. start a new thread or drag an old one out of the 3rd page or something. The real question is how do you go from disagreeing with the issues like Polix to just simply hating somebody like Akai?

Um, the way I used it satisfies your definition.

If they want to reach out to Muslims, that's great. But, if they want to pacify terrorists they are wasting their time, as well as convincing them that they are making headway in their war against the west.

And they say my ship is too big You realise ofcourse that gravity is the weakest of the four forces and thus that thing will travel really slow.

Well, that's X`terr's point. I never liked Clinton or Kerry. I think most of their policies were mistakes. I think Kerry is patriot and a great citizen, though he is just too left-wing for my taste. However, most of the left is taking this personally, going beyond dissagrement with Bush's policy and going to hatred of Bush as a person. I mean, look at these comments...hairspray, lobotomy, stupid? Those are PERSONAL insults aimed not at Bush's policy but at Bush as a person. Disagreeing with a policy is normal, that's merely having an opinion, but when you start dissagreeing with a person it is something entirely different. Its called hatred.

The "historical significance" is a just a few old houses, not something extremely special. The point about ths skinheads is that when somebody that a community doesn't want around tries to come in, communities sometimes use meanial regulations such as this one to get around the first amendment. The Skinheads had every cons!@#$%^&*utional right to protest in York, even if a riot is likely, but the county used obscure rules to scare them off. In the case of the skinheads its justified, they are abusing the first amendment only in hopes of creating chaos. I'm just hurt that Centre county is treating Catholics like skinheads.

I seem to be quoting a lot of other sources today. This one is actually from my local newspaper at State College, PA. Centre Daily Times This flat out sickens me. Freedom of Religion is granted under the US cons!@#$%^&*ution, and this freedom extends to Catholicism. By what right can a piss-ant zoning commision dare to go against the US Cons!@#$%^&*ution? Face it, they claim that this area doesn't allow recreational buildings and that the area is viewed as historical, but that's an excuse not a reason. I've seen this treatment before. I grew up around York, PA. Some years ago, some lawyers implicated the city mayor in some racial riots that occured in the 60s in which a black woman was killed. It turned out that he wasn't really involved in it, but the trial non-theless attracted the notice of a group of skinheads, and an extremist anti-racist group of anarchists. Both decided to protest on the same day at the same place, and were it not for York putting the entire police force between them, its certain that the town would have been home to a battle of idiot fanatics. The next year, when the skinheads tried to apply for another protest, the city cited a group of obscure laws that basically said that if they wanted to protest in York, they had to pay the local library something of the order of a few million dollars. Skinheads don't have that kind of money, so the racists didn't bother the city again. I can understand why York gave the racists that treatment. These were a group of violent hulligans who were not going to bring anything to the community except maybe a riot. I don't understand why State College feels they have to give a group of Catholics the same treatment. The center has only positive things to offer the community. There won't be a Catholic riot if they approve the center. (there might be a riot if the DON'T, but...) Such a center is probably going to be intilectual in nature, would be willing to host community events, and would only add to the cultural cornicopia of State College.

I'll just let the article do the talking this time. I apologize for the brackets, I recieved this article by e-mail. Any thoughts on this?

Terrorists made careers out of twisting the Koran to their own ends. For example, "Jihad" by origional definition meant attacking solely military targets, amoung other moral restrictions that are supposed to lead to very clean wars, a direct opposite to the kind of war Al Queda is fighting. Islam was never against secular government, because every society needs leaders to survive and Islamic society survived. Besides, democracy is the best organization of government we have that keeps equality among the masses. Besides, if their society is holding them back, they should get rid of it. Any god that commands his people to live in poverty, oppression, and misery is a god that should not be followed. Branding these guys as evil might not be that far off the mark, Al Queda does seem to be motivated by pure hatred.

Really, it sounds like a conspiracy theory but it isn't. The UN doing an investigation in the oil for food scandel, and many members of the international media were involved. Besides, saying that the international media is oil hungry really isn't any worse than saying the President is.

You are right, the timing was not right. We should have done it 12 years earlier under the justification "He tried to invade Kuwait".

Well, I do know that there is a pretty solid schism in the insurgents ranks. Some are sunnis who just the political power they had under Hussein back, others are Al Queda operatives who moved in for pretty much no reason other than the US is there. Defeating them is simple enough. First off, we have to show the sunnis that they will never again have the power they had under Hussein. Then, offer them a reasonable amount of power. The sunnis will reluctantly accept this if the first step was done right. Once the sunnis are pacified, then we can start pulling US troops. At this point we can focus on Al Queda. Al Queda divides themselves into autonomous cells. This makes them hard to track. The downside however is that these cells don't know about each other and are barely in communication with their leaders. Thus, their large scale movements and long term strategy have no controlled element. We are essentially playing chess against pieces that move on their own with no knowledge of their sides overall strategy. While it appears that their behavior would be random and unpredictable, they are infact very easy to predict. Each cell will find the nearest Western target and attempt to destroy it. After we deal with the sunnis, we have three main options, followed by the predictable Al Queda response: A) Pull all troops home from Iraq !@#$%^&*umng Al Queda doesn't change their goals, they will either regroup and attempt more attacks on the US mainland or attack Iraq under the mindset that its the next best thing. Leave one or two hardened bases under permission from the Iraqi government, kinda like the arrangement we have with Japan. Al Queda would then attack the hardened bases. C) Start another war or major relief effort elseware. Al Queda will move shop to wherever we go. Option A is dependant on whether or not they will consider the democratic government of Iraq "Western" or not. Most likely the decision will be made by individual cells, so they would split up and attack both targets. Generally, this isn't a good idea, because then we can't predict what Al Queda will do. Option C is best for Iraq, because it would leave them completely free of Al Queda. Generally though, this doesn't improve our position at all and also might require another war. Maybe if we moved to someplace like Ethiopia with the sole purpose of handing our food and shelter, this might be a good option. (Why would somebody fighting a "holy war" keep food from starving people?) However, I'd say the best decision is option B. First, we have to convince the Iraqi government to let us keep a base there and convince the international community that this isn't some attempt of occupation. Neither is an easy task, but Al Queda can do jack $ |-| ! 7 about it. Then, we build a base at the best location with the most sophisticated anti-terrorist defenses we can come up with. Then, we bragg about it, make arrogant public remarks, and keep saying how this base will be the death of Al Queda, in hopes that Al Queda attacks it. Al Queda has typically been blinded by their hatred a lot, so this should be easy. Basically Al Queda will always attack us and their is no getting around that. But if we convince them to focus their attacks on such an installation, we might be able to get Al Queda to bleed out their strength essentially bashing their head against a brick wall.

Wow...Akai made up an acronym that spells oil! I can't argue with that "logic"! Wake up Akai, and follow the Oil-for-food scandel. Those people who claim that Bush went in for oil probably concocted the notion to hide the fact that they themselves had their pockets lined with oil vouchers from Hussein. Hussein paid the international media to portray Bush in the most negative light possible, and now stories of the media making things up about Bush are beginning to surface. Bush left the oil business. If he had any desire to make profits from oil, he wouldn't have left the industry. If he wanted to make money off of oil he would have stayed in the oil industry. For whatever reason, he decided to leave and go into politics. Whatever his motives for this, his desires lie outside of aquiring and selling oil. Besides, I trust Bush more than I trust Saddam Hussein...and if you don't do as well, you have to be screwed up. Bush has been accountable to the 52% of Americans that voted for him, whereas Hussein only was accountable to the 20% of sunnis that he robbed the rest of the country to suuport. I will admit that there is a big US oil interest in Venezuela and that the US does a lot to keep the pipelines flowing. However, the US really hasn't done anything about this as of yet. We are talking hypothetical action here. Keep in mind that Operation Venezuelan Freedom only exists in your mind. Besides, we still probably can do without another group of communists on our doorstep.

Its been a while, but I think Monte is from Australia. Believe it or not Monte, most Americans can find Iraq on a map...any report that says otherwise was made by people selecting the dumbest participants they could find. Actually I thought the sunnis were 20%. Also, the majority of the insurgents are foreign nationals, though other than that its all sunnis. Comparing the case of sunnis to black or southerners boycotting an election doesn't work...during the time before the civil rights movement, blacks were forced away from the polls. They had every desire to vote, but were forcibly not allowed to. Anyways, the sunni vote count really doesn't matter over the long term. Whatever the result of the new government, sunnis are used to 100% control and probably view anything less as unnacceptible. They are used to having an unreasonable advantage, so any reasonable government is not going to get approval from them. Still, expect full turnout next election. When it becomes clear to the sunnis that they will excert more power casting ballots than blowing things up, they will vote. Them doing so won't end hostilities...there would still be foreign terrorists running around, but that will be when we can pull US forces. I'd venture to say that we have the situation in checkmate. No one can say have much time and how many lives the war will cost, but I'd say given Iraq's history, this would work. While 20% of Iraqis hate the new democracy, % have been waiting years for this. The insurgents can't turn this conflict into Vietnam. Vietnam was two countries, Iraq is one. North Vietnam had a standing army that could actually occupy territory. Insurgents in Iraq might be able to bomb a building, but they can't hold it. They can hide all they want, but when they crawl out of their caves ten years from now, they will find that we installed democracy without them. They can set up roadside bombs all they want, they will kill people, but that won't really change anything. Guerella tactics can't be used to gain territory, and without it they can't do much other than pointless killing. As for Iraq's dislike of foreign occupations, it stemmed from the Mongol invasion, in which the almost the entire civilian population of Baghdad was wiped out. They really don't hate occupants as much as foreign groups that waltz in and start killing non combatants, and right now Al Queda is fitting the description more than the US is. As for the chance of democracy working in Iraq, I think we are all going to be suprised. The region has been more progressive than the rest of the world since Sumeria. Whether they were called Sumeria, Akkadia, Babylon, Abbasid, or Persia, they have always been one step ahead of the world socially until the Mongol invasion and Ottoman occupation put a 250 year freeze on it. About half of what we know as democracy today was actually created in this territory by people of this cultural background. Given Iraq's history, they will form a stable democracy in 10 years and start teaching Europe a few things about it in 20. But the biggest reason is the american homefront. That is where Vietnam was truly lost, and negative people are trying to do it again. However, during the time of Vietnam the public turned on our soldiers. Thankfully, at this time nobody will dare cross that line. Both sides of the political spectrum are behind our soldiers, and as long as our soldiers are willing to fight, we won't give up. So, success in Iraq really boils down to the resolve of US soldiers. I'd say off my gut there is a 97% chance of success in Iraq, because I can't even imagine how the insurgents can intimidate a US soldier.

A) In fuedal times there was no difference No, according to my high school literature teacher, he stole from the Norman occupation...if you are going to straighten things out, get your information right. Monte...wake up. If you insist on pursuing mad conspiracy theories, Bush was one the few who DIDN'T want oil...those people desiring "peace" (if that's what you call the enforcement of the no-fly zone) wanted to stay out of Iraq because Saddam put oil vouchers in their pockets.

Interesting things have happened since I last posted in this forum. Don't get me wrong, I had no intention of ever coming in here again...especially when someone said that I'll be back...which reminded me of when SR said the same thing as I left SWR. (BTW, that zone is dead now and I have yet to return to it) I few interesting developments happened since I was gone, that many of you might have missed. The "vast right-winged" media, that was in "Bush's pocket" turned out to be....gasp...left wing. Its true! CBS publicised every little piece of dirt they could find on Bush, and when that wasn't enough, they started making stuff up! Ofcourse, they didn't admit that the story about him skipping national guard service was false until after the election. Not only that, but it was infact the international media that was in Saddam Hussein's pocket. That is, ofcourse, if you have been following the Oil-for-food scandal. I for one don't understand why that program was created in the first place, the Tigris-Euphrates valley is prime farming land, they probably had all the food they needed, unless ofcouse Saddam wasn't maintaining the irrigation canals, and judging by the size of the graves, he had sufficient digging equipment. moveon.org claims that they now own the democratic party. Between both organizations, Kerry had about 200 million more dollars to play with than Bush, but still lost. I guess this proves that money doesn't really matter in an election (that seriously suprises even me folks). I don't even want to know what percentage of moveon.org's donations actually come from the US. A new wave of anti-semitism is spreading in Europe. I wonder why they don't like Israel....hmmmm. Generally, every single thing that you guys were preaching as gospel before the election has now not only been revealed as false, but that infact the opposite is true.

(I'm returning to this forum because of the recent modvote proposals) I'll have to admit, if there is a place for communism in the world, it would be latin america. The cultural difference between North and South America stemmed from the colonization. When the Spanish came to colonize, they liked the fuedal system, just didn't like their place on it. Thus, Latin America was settled in a way where peasents from Europe would become the lords of latin america. There is a VERY heavy need of social reform even today. Also, highly stratified social classes promote laziness too. If you are a peasent, and no amount of work will make you a don, then there is little impetus to work. Thus, I would generally encourage social reform in latin america at this time. Still, Chavez is dangerous. Enacting legislation that tilts the tables in the little man's favor is one thing, using military might to play robin hood is another. For one thing, this policy can easily scare off international business, and if drastic enough those with money will leave too. And if Chavez has the resources to station troops on somebody's land, he should have enough money to buy the land with eminent domain (I don't know if Venezuela has this, but it has to be more legal than stationing troops) Generally though, I can understand Chavez. I can't understand the socialist ninnies in Europe, but I can understand Chavez. Venezuala has of yet to really leave fuedalism behind. If violence is what it takes to remove it, so be it. As for his purchases of military hardware, that's purely Venezuela's business.

No, it wouldn't even be silver tinted...you wouldn't be able to notice the .1% of silver while you are being bombarded with 99.9% of the color of reflected material. I'll add a few specs on my ship's structure: (dammit, I guess I'll use metric...stupid metric loving freaks!) Length: 84 meters Width: 21 meters Height: 18 meters The core of the Persephone is centered around a solid 81 meter long 3 meter radius cylindrical beam of a platinum-based alloy, nicknamed the "spine" of the ship, with smaller supports connecting the spine to the outer hull. The layout of the ship is rather organic, as upgrades and new systems were added wherever they could fit. The interior of the ship is rather crowded and uncomfortable, except for the spacious cargo holds if they are empty, which they usually never are. Instead of one large generator, the ship is powered by 21 motley and independant systems scattered to wherever they could fit. An electrical system, which on first glance appears to be the demented work of a madman, automatically distributes energy by electro-mechanical, not computer controlled, means. The outer hull is 1.5 meters thick, and is supported by a stretched variant of a geodesic dome from both above and below. This gives the ship something of an almond shape. The only interruptions in the smooth surface are the external docking ports on the underside of the ship and the engines in the rear. The ship is painted black and adorned with the Jolly Rodger insignia.