Aileron

We tried Clinton...that didn't work.

Yeah, Bush SOOOO went into Iraq without Congress' approval...maybe he should have gotten their vote on it. You do have a point though...Clinton could never have rallied an attack on Afghanistan. Monte...that news story is more real than half the stuff you subscribe to. Dav, now you are just being pessimistic. Tracking someone from the air is easy once you spotted them.

oh, you mean the 51% majority I'm sorry, most of the time ppl attack the electoral college system its about the scenario where a candidate loses the popular vote but wins the election. Well, there is a provision in the 51% marity rule...if the winning candidate doesn't get 51%, another vote is made by Congress I think.

Well, you got the idea of cultural evolution...if all the violent Palestinians blow themselves up before reproducing...all that's left are the peacefull ones. Even if the Hamas leader takes control its an improvement. At least Israel would be talking to the person who calls the shots.

United States means a group of states. Thus, it isn't a group of citizens of the United States, it is fifty groups of citizens of states, and the states are united. That is why we have the electoral college system. I was talking about the same thing you WERE talking about, now we are suddenly talking about the two party system. The problem with more candidates was demonstrated with the Bull Moose party...you could have two candidates with similar tickets spliting their half of the dominant mindset. The real problem here is the primaries. Right now the primaries are more of a shame, and the real election is the secondaries. It should be that the primaries are the big elections...where about 8 candidates push their issues, two are selected, and the secondary election being a minor event to close things off.

actually, the maximum a president can serve is 10 years...it requires that he get elected vice president, the president somehow being removed after two years of office, then getting reelected twice. before Iraq? Bin Laden should have been found before Bush even took office. The only problem we have now is that we have to re-tool our intelligence agencies...its currently set up to spy on the Soviet Union. Currently our intelligence is working on this, and when they do, terrorists will be captured or killed left and right.

Look, the amount of money political people run for office with is not "huge", its quite sad actually. My mother hates Enzyte commercials to the point that she can't stand them. She gets visably upset from the exploits of Bob, his VERY happy missus, and his buddy Tom, to the point where she must change the station. The point being, there are a lot more Enzyte commercials on TV than there are political campaign commercials. Our nation is spending more advertising !@#$%^&* growth drugs than Presidential elections. Just compaire salaries...your average Yankees player makes more than your average President. All four of the presidential and vice presidential candidates made more money BEFORE they entered the political field. That is the problem with politics...we have cut down the salaries of politicians so much that the best people want to run corporations, leaving only charity cases like our current candidates. As for the electoral college system...note that the name is the United States. Analyze what that means for a minute, and the reason for the electoral college system should become clear. Dav, you are being negative. Politicians are viewed as evil because the media says so. I'd rather put faith in a politician who is going after a lower salery over a reporter seeking a higher one.

This only PROVES two things: 1) The conservative theory about Bin Laden being already dead and us not knowing which smear was him is false. Bin Laden is clearly alive. 2) The liberal theory about Bin Laden already being captured and Bush saving him as an October suprise is false. Bin Laden is not captured. Bacchus, accept the fact that you can't comprehend what Bin Laden is thinking. None of us have any clue who Bin Laden wants. Heck, if anything, he probably doesn't care and scoffs at our concept of cycling leaders every eight years.

nah, we shouldn't cut down of the specials too much...otherwise we end up with a shipset of 8 different varients on the Jav. Face it, you guys don't have a problem with the terr's burst. You have a problem with a group of terrs bouncing bombs and repelling you away if you try to get close to them...then if you finally DO get close to them, then the burst. I'd say if anything its the prox...but really it is the simple fact that not enough players want to esc + 3 and wipe the terrs out.

yeah, that is less than a post a day...the fact that they are all in the political discussion says something though. 50%, this is a political forum. Your point about the video is correct though...no one gives a ****.

How did WE err? Most of that was terrorist on civilian bombings and you know it. You are blaming the US for every time an "Iraqi freedom fighter" kills Iraqi civilians. Its obscure logic...the fact that we started the conflict should make us prepared for any retaliation against our troops, but Iraqi civilians? If they were fighting for the Iraqi people, the Iraqi people wouldn't be their primary target. Note that I said PRIMARY target...if given the choice between a US army base and an Iraqi civilian structure, these people will choose the Iraqi civilians 15:1. Besides, it is clear that the US wants nothing more than to leave. Bush wants to lead in six months, Kerry wants to leave in six months, I'm sure even Nadar wants to leave as fast as possible. We want the region to stabilise so that we can leave. Anyone who wants the US out would help us rebuild infrastructure. So basically, you have a group trying to prevent stability so that we stay longer. If they wanted to drive us out, they wouldn't be fighting at all. If they thought that the Iraqi government is some kind of US puppet, they would be targeting US military forces and Iraqi government buildings. These people aren't fighting to get us out, they are fighting to keep us in! The only exception to this line of behavior is the beheadings and the Spanish train incident. This I can't understand...maybe they want to keep the US in and get our allies out.

I don't think Arafat was calling the show anyway...sadly, we have to root for him dying. As soon as he is out of the way, the person who is actually calling the shots might step foward as official leader, and real negotiations will start. Its unlikely that such a leader even exists, or would step foward in official capacity if he did, but I'm still hoping.

My SWR bye thread reached two pages...and without some flamer adding random comments. As for the resident shemale...Leidmeister (how do you spell it?) volunteered today.

well, you don't understand this forum's life cycle. It is usually VERY active for a few months, then dies for a few months, then is revived again. You are just happening to come in during one of the inactive cycles. Seriously though, it would be great if we could work out some kind of sub-arena and find some way for it to intermingle with this.

This is not as important as you think it is. If Arafat's health is that bad, he isn't an effective leader anyway.

I haven't been in 17th that long, but I am dissappointed with seeing X'terr go...good players are always fun to face. Envenomed...I've never seen a good player with a bad at-*BAD WORD*-ude...and I have been to many zones. The only case where good players MIGHT is indeed SVS zones, where everyone seems to have a bad at-*BAD WORD*-ude. I've tried SVS and was good enough to get a decent w/l ratio and rating. However, the bad at-*BAD WORD*-ude killed it for me. Realise that when you leave that little SVS bubble and trash talk anywhere else, people will assume you are a noob because only noobs trash talk. Also, just because SVS was the first type of settings doesn't make them require the most skill. SVS is a slow strategic dance, 17th is a tricky matchup of hitting your opponant while dodging your opponant's fire. SVS makes offense difficult but defense easy...17th makes offense easy but defense difficult.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...terrorists are not fighting for any remotely respectable cause. We should have no qualms about hunting each on of them down and shipping them off to be tortured to death somewhere. Maybe we shouldn't torture them to death, but if so only because we are not barbarians...they themselves deserve whatever we can give them.

The UN isn't a legal power. It can't judge nations by those means, because the UN has no authority in and of itself. It needs the support of large powers to keep itself running, so it needs to give extra power to its chief contributers. Without that support, the powerfull nations would abandon the UN and it would collapse.

Okay, European nations border each other or have about 20 meters of sea travel between them. The point is that European businesses and persons have to do international trade on a daily basis. That is not the case in most nations. Only a select few large persons and some large US-based international corporations would benefit. As for sovreignty, you put the cart before the horse. Having a common currency doesn't affect a nation's sovreignty much, but that wasn't my point. My point was that a certain amount of non-sovereignty is required in the first place. Non-sovereignty is the cause, not the effect. Most nations are not in an organization like the EU. Sure, there's things like NAFTA, but they don't nearly have enough power to enact these kind of changes. You still haven't pointed out though why we need it. What's the problem with the current system? Why should we turn our economy upside-down to accomodate a few travellers and a few large businesses?

yeah, but European nations are now only half-sovereign, have about the same level of economy, have few geological barriers between them, don't have to worry about gold storage (they all stored it in Switzerland before), and actually had benefits from doing this, and many other things. Most off, they had actual need. European countries are small and contain many borders, citizens could easily cross national borders daily. How would the US benefit? We have two countries bordering us, and a ton of terrirtory. Under what cir!@#$%^&*stances would a person living in Kansas need a universal currency so bad that we should tear the whole worldwide currency system apart and start anew. Atleast Canada, Mexico, Japan, Australia, China, Argentina, Brazil, and every island nation is in the same boat. The citizens in these countries don't travel to other nations routinely. As a matter of fact, travelling to other countries routenly is something unique to Europe. Put it this way...If its not broke, don't fix it. Our current currency system is running fine.

Well, all money needs to be backed. By whose standards should this be done? Should it be gold only, or should it be based on something obcure like stock? If the latter, what would happen in the event of a localised recession? Where would the gold be stored and can the one storing it be trusted? How would priting be done? If the rich nations used primative presses, there would be counterfeits all over the place, but if the printing presses were advanced, then poor nations couldn't afford to print money. and those are the EASY problems by any measure.

Look, France is by no means docile. They are much more power hungry than the US and have a track record to prove it when one takes the time to look. Suffice to say, every Canadian is living proof of this. Nations are by definition sovereign, so the UN technically has no legal right to make any resolution. Also, you make it sound like using a veto is wrong...its our right. But please, I'd love to see the UN function without the US. -*BAD WORD*-, I'd love it if there was a rebellion in Haiti or a warlord taking over Somalia, and some other nation would lead the peackeeping efforts. Please, give my government a break. Heck, why should we be the global police all the time? Why can't we punch out and let 3rd shift take over, get some much-needed R&R? Maybe if France (or anyone else) leads the peacekeeping efforts to solve some crisis in some third world country, my government can kick back and focus on domestic issues. Heck, maybe I would be the one pissing and moaning about the crappy job the other nation is doing. Seriously, any nation that is willing to step up to the plate and solve the next world crisis is welcom to it.

um, no...it leads to all sorts of problems. Truly sovereign nations are incapable of making common currency.

Oh I get it now, the Euro is like that play money they hand out at theme parks. Wales is the first craft shop that puts a sign up saying "We don't accept Europark money".

Ducky, didn't that use to be a NRA advertisment? (All in favor of gun control raise your right hand) France is by no means a slave to the US. They ceased being a world power about midway through the 19th century and because the allies were idiots they were given a security council vote. Look at them now. They have little military or economic influence on the world, and that's not just because they are "recovering from World War II". Germany recovered from WW1 in only a couple decades during a world wide recession. Japan was atomic bombed during WWII, yet today they are a world power, and rival the US in many industries. Thus, France has had more than enough time to recover from WWII. They are well beyond needing the US for economic support. Their own economic weakness is their own fault. France is not much different than Spain or Italy. France is a country that was centuries ago a world power, but today not really. The problem here is France has a UN security council vote, so France is convinced that they somehow are a world power and should act like one. The sooner they realise that they do not have the physical power to back up their legal power, the better off the world will be.