Aileron

hmmmm.....tough....democrats.... You guys always have Hillary Clinton - that amount of pure evil concentrated in one person has to count for something.

look the debate was a draw, and Bush had a bad day. When Bush has a good day, Kerry won't be able to stand.

And I kinda think I'm speaking for everyone now...no skin wearing freaks. (I kinda thought addind a Silence of the Lambs element would make my character more evil...though it ended up killing the thread. Sorry. I'll just try a simple pirate captain this time)

Sheesh. What about the matrix moves Kerry makes? Guns are useless man ;P <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You don't understand, Bush is a LEGENDARY gunman, he could shoot ten nickles at 500 yards in three seconds with only his six-shot .45 Magnum. How can one hit ten targets with only six bullets? Stfu, you know nothing! Karate skillz own normal gunmen, but when they run into a gunman like Bush, they would just get their !@#$%^&* kicked.

........... you people are crazy! Some congressman suggests women be drafted, you mentally turn that proposal into people trying to reinstate the draft, and now you are thinking Bush wants to take away child labor laws? Buy some medication. I can't argue inside your wierd little view of the world. I can't vote for Kerry though....he will without a doubt bring back prohibition and make slavery legal again.

Well, that's my point...people don't think the AU can handle this on their own...which is precisely why they should. Other nations mayb should give token support, but they need to do the brunt of the work if the AU is to be respected in the future.

Well yeah, Bush is going to kick Kerry's !@#$%^&*...We all know Bush is going to kick Kerry's !@#$%^&*...So what is the point of proving that Bush is going to kick Kerry's !@#$%^&*?

hmm...my link doesn't seem to work...just do what Krash said. Don't worry - there won't be a draft, the US army doesn't function that way. We simply don't have the manpower (draft or not) to have a cannon fodder style military. The US military compensates for this by producing quality troops and giving them quality equipment. The Army wouldn't even be helping themselves by forcing weak morons to join. Espcially not in the current political climate, where every American casualty makes the front page. A large army of idiots suffers more casualties than a small army of 1337ness. But yeah, this bill is about drafting women. They also make the point about drafting skilled persons...only because that is the only practical reason why you might want to draft women.

Well, people's opinions change over time. There are a lot worse examples of spam than this.

..... ..... ..... ..... MORONS!!!! This is the proposal: The bill includes stuff about improving the efficiencies of the draft...but the real purpose of the bill is to allow the Selective Service to draft women. Its the classical "should women be drafted" proposal! And this bill wasn't "tucked under the elections" as you said...it started on January 7, 2003 Since you are going to ask for it, here is the link: HR 163

My opinion is that multinational force should be used and US not be a part of it...the African Union needs to use this situation to show that it can handle problems on its own...otherwise countries won't respect it.

Well, the problem here is that the debates were rather friendly, and the candidates were more mature than to really go at each other. Still, they are going to want to save their best issues for the third debate, so that the other candidate cant react.

Well, yeah, it doesn't make sense for something to create the universe He is inhabiting. As for the "who created God" question, it is considered that God simply always existed, and had no beginning.

I'd be willing to go out on a limb and say that the way Japan defended themselves from the Mongols when they were out taking over the world (they didn't, a sudden storm did most of the work) and the way the same thing happened to the Spanish Armada after losing to Great Britain. (While they lost the battle beforehand, a storm did most of the damage) might qualify as miracles. Though we can easily explain the sceince which causes storms at sea happen, its just the shear odds of a sudden storm croping up in normally clear waters just as a major invasion is happening is kinda miraculous. Theorhetically anything is possible, on the subatomic level, things like electrons and protons don't really exist, but are a probability of charge and m!@#$%^&* distribution. Thus, its physically possible for a solid object to teleport over great distances, though the odds of the center of m!@#$%^&* for every subatomic particle in that object to move in the same direction and distance, though infinitesimally small. Thus, I don't think any miracle really violated the laws of physics, its just that they had a very small chance of happening at a very convenient time I mean, just think how you could play Subspace if you could control every dice rolled? Bullets would do almost no damage to you, their damage is random. No one on the other team would dare pick up a green (engine shut-down), as a matter of fact, such greens would spawn underneath them at very bad times. You would have shields and super ALL the time. No one could repel your fire. (Repel strengths are random, the lowest being completely useless) You wouldn't need ports, all you need to do is pick up the nearest warp green and decide where you want to go. Every else unfortunate enough to go through a gate or get sucked into a wormwhole would warp directly on top of your mines. Your rating would be great...players would pick up 500 useless greens of the same type that spawed directly underneath them to moment before you killed them. And if after all that the entire other team got together and somehow got you down to red...the server would crash. Basically, you would probably even kick the Twister player's !@#$%^&*es, and it would all be perfectly explainable in the laws of Subspace. Consider the impact on a much more random real world. Miracles are probably the same way...they all CAN be explained by science, its just unprobable. Social government probrams might be made to work for domestic programs, but what about when foreigners are in trouble? The fundimental role of government is to serve their own people - there is a limit to how charitable they can be to other countries. And yes, all religions have to be charitable, because all of them have an element of social conciousness in them...even the very old religions required that you be charitable to others - they might be gods in disguise. The extremely old, such as anchient Egypt, didn't have as much...but no other organization from their time and before would work today either.

Yeah, why are we stupid enough to use our intelligence sources when we have that magical-hindsight 20/20 crystal ball of yours?

I think neither candidate made headway, though I've seen Bush on better days. Bush's problem last night is that he is an offensive thinker - and with our homeland defense capabilities and our military capabilities, that is the right mindest. We have virtually no arms battaries or walls, but a military that kicks !@#$%^&*. Thus, Bush properly has spent the entire War on Terror on offense, and properly so. The problem he ran into last night is that he was forced to DEFEND his policy on Iraq. He spent the last 3 years thinking offensive, and now all of a sudden he has to defend himself. It put him in a rather akward position. Kerry on the other hand needs to watch what he says. There is a MAJOR whole in his policy, which I'm suprised Bush didn't pick up on. Kerry criticises Bush for going into Iraq unilaterally, but look at his policy on other nations. He criticised Bush for using foreign troops to go after Bin Laden, favors Bilateral Talks with North Korea, and said too many other nations had involvement in Iran. Why is a unilateral approach wrong for Iraq, but right for Bin Laden, North Korea, and Iran? Maybe Bush didn't point this out because it could be turned against him. Why favor a multilateral approach for Bin laden, North Korea, and Iran, but not Iraq? However, I think Bush would would won the slugfest in this contest...so I wonder why Bush didn't drag Kerry into it.

I seriously think there is enough gaps in both theories that they can both simltaneously exist at the same time. An author can introduce a character on page 3, then go over that character's past on page 7. Who's to say that God didn't create the universe, then "write" the universe' past afterwards? (This requires that God must be outside the time frame of our universe, which actually is the only thing that makes sense and is explicitly stated in the Bible. In our reference frame, it would be impossible for us to tell the difference - the only difference would be in His reference frame.) Walk into any Physics Class, and ask "why" something happens. The physics instructer will referr you to your local cleric. I have done my research in this...all of my physics teachers and professors hold this view, and they come from different backgrounds. It is a constant view in science that one cannot answer "why" but only "how" our universe works. Thus, it is unscientific to use science against relgion. How can our understanding of our universe possibly give us insight as to what is beyond our universe? Besides, as both the most scientific/logical AND the most religious person here - I can claim complete monopoly over this whole issue. You are wrong, I am right, end of story. Theology aside...you guys simply don't realise how much society needs religion. Religion is supposed to be the social equilizer, and our current social problems stem from people like yourself cutting her legs out from underneath her. Who better to look after the poor? Any religion that fails in this task is hypocritical. After all, you can have meetings and rituals, but at the end of the day, a person's faith in that religion is dependant upon how many of the lowly are helped by it. How can one ignore a man who feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, provides shelter for the homeless, etc.? Thus, a religion needs to be a social equilizer in order to survive. A government survives by looking after its cons-*BAD WORD*-uents, a business by looking after its owner. A religion NEEDS to look after the poor...and that is why religion is needed in every society. That role needs to be filled...current modern problems stem from people trying to put government into that role.

Omen, all your sources prove is that somewhere in the world, there are some liberals who know html. You can't use an opinion to support another opinion in place of facts. Cheney meeting with the CIA doesn't prove much for your point either. Talking to a Ford or Firestone Executive doesn't make you responsable for the Explorer fiasco a few years back. Then again, maybe you should be quoting other people's opinions...if you think you just laid the "heat" on me, you probably are in fact better off letting other people argue for you. Look, you guys are thinking about this the wrong way. Prior to the invasion - there was a reasonable chance Hussein COULD have had WMDs. Maybe he disarmed and maybe he didn't - if he did he would have been the first nation to actually do so under those cir!@#$%^&*stances. In Hussein's place, I would have hid them. Invading Iraq was the only way we could become positive. Prior to 9/11, that wasn't good enough. Why wage war on a possibility? Aftwerwards, the reason becomes clear. If we did nothing, we risked letting Hussein get a sneak attack on us with a WMD. It was risking Iraq's innocence vs. risking our own security. Bush chose correctly. Why do you thing Bush needed proof beyond shadow of doubt? Iraq isn't a citizen, its a country. Countries are man-made concepts that don't have rights of their own. What if we are wrong about Hussein and his lackeys? They clearly deserve death for other reasons, will the world stop turning if the one that finally does them in is not correct? These reasons may be good enough if nothing is at stake in peace, but with weight on the other end of the scale, they aren't good enough. I mean, you can make plenty of nice-sounding words now - but prior to the invasion there was no way one could guarentee our citizens safety. We don't even know if Ritter wasn't threatened to be nice in his reports. It is not the President's job to gamble with American lives. A little more than a thousand soldiers in a small price to pay for the positivity of security of millions.

My point exactly Bacchus. Suppose one's only supply of water was infested with disease. Which would you care about more: 1) Blowing up people lucky enough to have clean water 2) Putting disease in someone else's supply of clean water 3) Getting your own supply of clean water The obvious choice is 3, because 1 or 2 doesn't even help your situation. People who a truly poor do not hate the rich at all, they spend their time trying to do something usefull and to get out of poverty. Most sane ones would try to be our "friends" to become benfeciaries of our wealth, much like a poor hot girl marrying an old rich guy. Left wingers usually go wrong in that you guys equate hurting the rich to helping the poor... they are not usually the same thing. The poor wish to help themselves and be helped, but do not care about hurting the rich or having them hurt.

if you happen to be liberal its 8/8. I can only agree to half of one of them. By the way, 5 is not a problem at all. A "stable" Middle East caused 9/11. In that cae of that, any "instability" is a good thing. And 6 is not exactly your arguement. It states that the would cause them to hate us. Yeah, no Middle Eastern hated the United States before the Iraq invasion. Look, spare this. You guys hate Bush. You hated him before he was even elected, and spent his entire term looking for something to criticise about him. When you didn't find !@#$%^&*, you made a big deal about Iraq. There is nothing that can be saide about Iraq that cannot be said about Bosnia or Kosovo. You don't care about Iraq...its just another political issue to you. Its just a means for you to convey your feelings about Bush while hiding the fact that your opinion of him is nothing but emotion. Iraq is nothing more than your political persona. You try to act like you are defending the rights of a helpless nation, just to hide the fact that you hate Bush and have no valid reason for doing so. [And trust me, you don't want to hear what I REALLY think your motivations are.]

You honestly think that is mutually acceptable? That isn't a compromise, that is your opinion. Look, the MINIMUM compromise that can be had here is for Christianity to survive in some corner of the world until the end of time. Anything less shouldn't even be brought to the table. Keep in mind that it is in YOUR mind that religion in unproven. Also keep in mind that atheism is as unproven as anything else. We simply do not know what the correct view is on this subject, or if there is a correct view at all. To say that in 90 years we should drop everything and pick up athiesm is bigotry equal to religious discrimination.

Yeah, most Hollywood celebreties are riduculously richer than I am, but I don't care. I have ideed grown up around a lot of farmers and amish. They don't care about those who make more money than they do, they just care about how to make more money for themselves. I doubt the NORMAL people in third world countries are capable of envy, they probably just want a little more bling bling for themselves at the end of the day.

... This discussion has nothing to do with Iraq moron. Please don't revive dead posts, and please don't make another Iraq discussion out of this topic. Dav, I know this was a while back, but you basically don't like democracies because the real world examples of democracy are not democratic enough. So, you really think that democracy in and of itself is utterly perfect, just that current governments don't represent that en-*BAD WORD*-y. So, what are we going to do about it? I don't know. I DO know one thing about revolutions. All nations are comprised of four things: land, population, culture, and sovreignty. This works as good as an theorhetical defignition aught to. (so, don't nit-pick plz) The point is that if you look back at the revolutions that changed none of these, usually the fought and fought, took over the government and when the dust settled they had the exact same problems as they did before. Examples include the English Civil War, the mul-*BAD WORD*-ude of revolutions in France, every little revolt in Latin America, etc. A revolution merely to replace government will take us nowhere.

I'll admit Al Queda probably didn't cause the event in Chechnya. They still have killed lots of innocent children though. The only thing I don't understand is why to they desire so much media attention, and don't use it to convey whatever message they have? They don't state what they are fighting for and why in a clear and understandable fashion. The only explanation is that their reason is so full of emotion that they cannot decribe themselves in words. I cannot even hold reservations about opposing any group that makes such mortal decisions based on pure emotion. I have felt emotions to do a lot of things, some of which are completely horrid. I know for myself that such emotions bear nothing of merit within themselves. Your desire to look for the good in these people is a good quality. If such qualities exsisted in other people throughout history, many people qould have been spared pain and many nations would not have been oppressed. However, this is not such a case. This is not some lack of cultural understanding. I don't know everything Islamic, but I do know that the killing of innocents is wrong in their culture as well. Either a) All Amercans including civilians are wrong enough to be worthy of death, Terrorists are wrong by their own beliefs, or c) their cause justifies the sacrifice of innocent blood. If (a) is true, we have no incentive to behave in a moral fashion, for we am already so evil that every American man, woman, child, and infant deserve, complete and torturous annihilation. If we are that evil, the US should screw morality and just nuke populations for fun. If we are already evil incarnate, what's another drop in the ocean? If (a) is true, morality does not apply, so we can ignore this possibility. © cannot be true. For a cause to justify the loss, it must actually be obtained. If their cause was getting the US out of the Middle East, they have freed negative two Muslim countries from Yankee Imperialism by Sept. 11th. Either they are extremely incompetent or they don't have such a justification. That leaves b, that terrorists are wrong even by their own beliefs. Thus, there really is no good in them at all, and the normal axiom does not apply.

Look athiests, take an anthropology class, see how societies NEED religion in order to survive, then come back. Society cannot function without religion any more than it can function without government, science, business or education. You guys don't like religion, so you want to deny that fact, but its still ture. Yeah, the fact that Bush mentions God shows that he won't hide his beliefs to be politically correct. The ramifications of that are so obvious they don't need to be mentioned.