Aileron

Bacchus, Al Queda slaughtered kids in Russia, and their motives are unclear. If I had an opinion worth killing innocent children, I'd make -*BAD WORD*- sure everyone was crystal clear as to what it was. They strike practically randomly for no reason that is obvious enough to be understood. If terrorists were pissed off at our decisions, they would attack our decision makers. They don't - they attack our PEOPLE. There is no degree of righteousness in that. Besides, why would they give a -*BAD WORD*- about Haiti? If they care about peace and an end to poverty so much, why aren't they corraberating with the UN? If they care about the poor, how come when they made millions off the stock market on Sept 10th, that they pocketed that money rather than share it with their people? You are blinded for your hatred of the US to the point that you cannot see who terrorists really are and what they represent.

Actually the rule is that you are a US citizen if you were born on US soil OR one of your parents were a US citizen at the time. This my overlap countries with similar rules, in which case the child will have duel or even trio citizenship. Look, the thing I REALLY don't like from the left is how you criticise the "going into Iraq caused terrorism" NOW. Prior to the invasion, the only criticism you could muster was the "Oil-war" arguement - which I have repeatedly proven is a crock of BS, to the point that all intelligent liberals gave up on it. This is nothing but Monday-morning quarterbacking. Sadistic arguement, but if Al-Queda attack our soldiers in Iraq, then they are too busy too attack our civilians at home. The problem is Iraq isn't as violent as the media says it is - Al Queda is clearly striking in Spain and Russia. Thus, either they grown in leadership, or the media is blowing the violence in Iraq out of proportion. And the thing is that we have captured or killed most of their leadership as well as destroyed any infrastructure they had, so their leadership has diminished and not grown.

Yep, I can agree to that. The rest of your post is an ignorant libigot pre-made judgement. white_Omen, seperation between church and state means that both church and state are sovereign en!@#$%^&*ies, and that religion has equal power and authority as the state. You have it backwards though, this issue is about the state trying to push its authority over a religious matter. Ducky, marriage certificates don't give a couple the right to consider themselves married, they have it regardless. Enter the example of polygamy in Utah. None of those marriages are endorsed, yet they still consider themselves married, and their community does as well. I'm not comparing the two beyond that, so don't reply to this. Since some noob is going to overcompaire and reply to that comparison anyway - stfu noob. If denied the right to marry, gay couples will still consider themselves married, and everyone who thinks so will consider them married as well. Thus, their rights are not violated in the slightest. Maybe its the tax-break married couples get. However, this is merely economic incentive to get married in order to increase consumption and produce the next generation of workers...neither of which really apply to gay couples. However, I think a compromise can be struck here. The left should make abortion illegal except in the case of health risk to the mother and the right allow some form of gay marriage. Both sides give a little and take a little. The gays get to make their family, the babies get to live to see tomorrow. The state gets a load of consuption and a large worforce tomorrow. The church gets to see abortion made illegal. Everyone wins.

Ofcourse, (1) doesn't apply in the complete case. My only point is that we don't need to justify not changing anything. Judgeing by the fact that you resorted to flaming, it looks like my point holds water. Just keep in mind, we aren't withhold rights, we are witholding certificates.

Ducky, the blank paper is a metaphore for the union between a gay couple, not the legal form. Its there to point out the differences between a $20 bill and normal paper. I could have used a quarter and a small chunk of metal instead. Metal that is backed by the government in worth 25 cents of gold. Metal that is not backed by the government is worth whatever the buyer and seller agree upon, one option being 25 cents of gold. Thus a marriage backed by the government is worthy of X, and a marriage not backed by the government is worthy of whatever the "buyer" agree upon, one option being X. I'll retry this in section 2 without the confusing metaphore. 1) We are defending the status quo, a status quo that has been around for almost a million years. Under the rule that "if its not broke, don't fix it", we don't need ANY reason to resist change. Its the force of change that needs to provide the reason. Kinda like Newton's first law: A body at rest stays at rest. Unless a good force is put on the object, it won't move. 2) We are not talking about "rights" here, but certificates. Altough marriage is a right, not a priveledge. Well, the difference is simple. Imagine a place of complete and utter anarchy. Two - whatever - decides to get married. Now, they have every right to do so. However, the problem arises when they talk to a third person for some reason. The third person can either view the couple as married or view the couple as not married. Now enter the marriage cerificate. If the third person does not view that as a marriage, the couple can slam their marriage certificate in that person's face, pointing out that the government says they are. The third person, being a citizen of that government is required by law to view the couple as married then. Suppose the couple did not have the certificate. They still have the right to view themselves as married, and the third person still has the right to view them as married. So, it is not the couple's right to consider themselves married in question, it is the right of third parties to deny that marriage which is in question. Now religion does enter into this. The third party could be a person, business, whatever, but if the third party happens to be a religion, and they decide not to recognize the couple as married, to infringe on that right would be to infringe on that religion, violating the First Amendment. Thus, giving the couple a marriage certificate when the religion does not recognize the marriage violates the members of that religion's rights.

nah, Recombo has a general point that is not hypocritical, but he needed to be a little more carefull with the wording... What he was pointing out is that on this forum, everyone attacks the US, and every other country in the world has %-120% the same faults as the US. The thing is the foreigners on this forum are never prepared to defend their own countries' decisions, they instead try to change the subject to the US. Its kind of like "those who live in gl!@#$%^&* houses shouldn't throw stones", altough we are talking about a bunch of normal houses, each with their own windows. The point is, your houses have windows too, so stop throwing stones at ours!

I'm well aware as to why torture was halted. The thing is that it only applies to when it is used to generate a rationalized confession. However, what we are looking for is reasoned information about other terrorists actions. Basically, the witch hunters used torture to "prove" the person was a witch. We have terrorists who are already proven to be terrorists, and we want other information out of them. That other information can still be fabricated, but its better we have too much information with some of it being factual rather than have no information. It also doesn't violate humanitarian standards. These people's fate was decided by their actions. No one forced them to join an organization that' sole purpose is slaughtering of civilians, and the prospect of saving the next batch of a hundred or so civilians outweighs the suffering of the one or two people who probably had it coming anyway. It shouldn't be automatically used in every case, only a few select cases with some of the more high-ranking individuals. All I'm saying is that it shouldn't be automatically ruled out. I'd rather have a few terrorist leaders suffer than have another Patriot Act or another September 11th.

Not quite, Ducky. Everyone has a right to recognize a marriage it they choose to. If a religion wants to recognize gay marriage, they can do so if the couples do not have a certificate. However, if the couple does, those that do not wish to recognize it are still forced to. A marriage certifact is like paper money. Money is essentially a law that requires citizens to recognize a piece of paper to be equivolent to its stated value in gold. If I were to walk into Fort Knox with a $20 bill and say: "Here is a $20 bill, I want $20s worth of gold" whoever was managing the fort would be legally required to trade. If I similarly walked in with a blank sheet of paper, the teller would not be required to do so. The interesting thing is though, if I offered the same paper to someone with $20s of gold, and he was stupid enough to hold enough value to it, it would be legal to trade a normal paper for $20s of gold. No one is required by law to view blank pieces of paper as near-worthless. Thus, its legal for theme parks to make their own little version of money that is only good in their park. A marriage without a certificate is like a blank sheet of paper. While people are not required to view it as a marriage, they are also not required to view it as nothing. Thus, any religion who wishes to recognize gay marriage may still do so, and they would be acting kind of like a theme park. Their marriages won't be good outside their religion, but all religious rights are preserved.

alright, lets try this...slowly I was referring to people in the plural sense, meaning the general forum population. I wasn't saying that about the same PERSON who said anything, because I was talking about the PEOPLE who inhabit this forum. Ducky, you happen to only be a moderate liberal. Nintendo, if you think I am far-right, I'm not !@#$%^&*uming that because you did not say it, but if you do you gotta be kidding yourself. The people I grew up around are far more right wing than I will ever be. Still I don't think you do consider me to be that far right-wing, because you did not say so.

-*BAD WORD*-, Ducky, you just made my arguement for me. Our country has religious freedom, meaning one have have whichever opinion of marriage you want, meaning someone can't force on opinion of marriage on you. Couple that with what a marriage license does. It forces people to recognize a marriage, whether or not they personally agree with it. So, by giving a gay couple a marriage ceritificate, you are telling every religious group that does not view gay couples as married that they cannot practice that aspect of their religion, violating the first amendment. pffft...we don't need an amendment banning gay marriage, we already have one! As long as there are religions that disapprove of gay marriage, the government cannot force those religions by means of marriage certifcate to recognize them.

Canada remains free from terrorism because terroirsts can hurt Canada more by attacking the US. Recombo's general point is valid. When a citizen from the US feels like helping the poor, he or she pays out of their own pocket. When a Canadian does, they selfishly try to preserve their pockets and just point their finger at the US and try to guilt trip us into being more charitable. That, my friends is why I hate all forms of liberalism, socialism, and communism. All three systems are people who want to force people richer than themselves to help the poor, because they are too selfish to do so themselves.

Dammit! This forum is sick. Anyone who shows a political stance less left than pure marxism (I'm insulting Karl Marx, he atleast realised he was to the radical left) is insulted by morons until they can't take it any more. You know why I am here? I must be crazy. For being the "tolerate openminded" liberals you claim to be, you are the most closed minded libigots I have ever had the displeasure of "conversing" with. I don't know why I don't leave you guys in your own stupidity, I guess there is some kind of personality quality that makes me come here. Recombo, if you read this I request you to stay, though you are probably making the wise decision. Still, realise that these people are morons and their opinion of you should not be respected. A Soldier, before you start throwing names around like a monkey throws -*BAD WORD*- around, realise how few moderates there are here. Of those who aren't completely apathetic, there are about two or three moderates, no true conservatives, about eight socialists and two communists. Not only that, but the socialists and communists here are of the idiotic theorhetical vartiety that does not work rather than the real-life variety that atleast functions in reality. What's even worse is that you guys actually think you are moderate. One top of all that is the fact that you view yourselves as having knowledge of other cultures, which you obviously don't because you view yourselves as moderates, and if you had any scope of the world's political cornucopia you would see that you aren't. You people insult all other opinions out of this forum, because you cannot face the fact that you are radical and often wrong. Sorry for the rant, but I had that pent up for a while. I feel much better now.

What Ducky, you think eveyone who isn't a communist like yourself is stupid? Boy, with that sheer underestimation of your opponants, its a wonder you are still alive today. Ugh, quit whining about slavery. It was wrong, but a lot less sadistic from the European fuedal system. We went to the other side of the world to a starving country for our slaves, they went accrossed the street and made slaves out of their neighbors, many of whom they actually knew. Your origional point about "under God" in the pledge is stupid. Its two words. They aren't going to force kids to beat Muslim students. Its not forcing your religion upon someone. The idea of seperation between church and state was created in context of the Spanish Inquisition and various national wars over religion. This simply doesn't compare. Anyone who can't stand two words of monodeitic text has no business being in any country not completly tied to his/her home religion. Removing enough religion so that no one would have to face two words of religion would be to remove religion completely. Knowing you, you probably have no problem with that. Maybe someday you will see how important religion is in society, but untill then just recognize the fact that you are either communist or highly socialist and you have to right to consider it "a bubble of stupidity" when a moderate dissagrees with you. Now, back to the actuall ISSUE here. I say the problem with schools is that they have become a right of passage. Its no longer a means to teach students, its something kids have to do in the process of growing up. Its the mindest of schooling that has to be changed. The "No Child Left Behind" plan chips away at this problem, when schools need to compete with each other, it makes the situation like businesses providing products. The problem is it takes several years before we know if it works or not. The US college system is pretty good, though getting expensive. There is only one problem here and its easy to solve - we need more schools. Higher supply lowers demand lowers price.

*falls of his chair* OMG! We are actually paying attention to the wrongs of other countries for once! Monte, I wouldn't classify terrorists as human. To some extent, I don't see how someone could plan the killing of innocent children, lable it a "Jihad" (meaning that combatants should only kill other combatants, and let the charitable actions of the clergy be the means of changing your oponants opinion) and still keep his human rights in the end. Maybe not in every case, but certainly in some. I'd rather enfringe on the liberties of terrorists than infringe on those of the innocent public with tighter security measures. Canada does wish to sidestep the war on terror, but unfortunately for them, its allied with the US, as well as economically tied to her. Thus, while you don't really care about the issue, you wish the US to win this fight because are tied to the US. This is actually very healthy politics; there's nothing wrong here, though I wouldn't classify Canada as being heroic.

Look, after thought about this, it isn't really about the right of gays to marry. Really, they already have the right to marry any place, any where, any time. The problem is no one will recognize it as a marriage. Its not about a gay couple's right to say "we are married", it is about those who wish to say "no, you are not". A marriage certificate basically forces the rest of the people in the country to recognize the marriage a a legitimate marriage like any other. But society doesn't view them as marriages like any other, they view them as "gay marriages". Their marriage is not like any other's theirs is a gay one. So, society doesn't want to view their marriage in the way that a marriage certificate would try to make them. That means that in seeking "rights" (as I said, they have all the rights they need, they want a certificate) of the few, you are pushing aside the rights of the many, and calling those who don't like it bigots. Maybe we should compromise, and give gay couples a "gay marriage certificate". Give them their own territory if you will, so they stop going after ours. Ducky, you are so concerned with being a "bigot" that you can't see the complexity of the issue. These are not black people asking to vote, these are gay people asking to marry, and giving them this request would turn society upside down. We are staking our whole society on this issue, so whatever decision we make should be thought out. Also, the gay rights movement is kind of like a ship travel in the wake of a larger civil rights movement ship. Instead of gaining the ground themselves, they point to ground gained by the civil rights movement, and make similar claims. This is wrong - such an important issue needs to stand on its own, without guilt leftover from the 60s. Calling the other side "bigot" not only is an overly quick decision, but also puts homosexual's in the wake of african americans. They are too different groups, and they need to have two different struggles at very least.

The problem here is simple: there is no section on terrorists in the Geneva conventions. What needs to be done is that the international community needs to get together and decide how to appropriately deal with them. In my opinion, terrorists should be treated in a similar way to spies. Execution should be permitted, as well as a limited amount of "roughing up". The reason for the latter is important, terrorists hold a large amount of information that could be used to save the lives of innocents. There is normally a mutuallity in pow relationships. Both sides takes prisoners, and returns them after the war. The problem here is that terrorists don't take prisoners and keep the alive, but find barbaric means of execution. They are also more like spies than soldiers. They wear civilian clothes and try to byp!@#$%^&* enemy military rather than fight them. What also needs to be done then is for there to be a clear definition of the term terrorist laid out. Maybe the US should have consulted Canada a little more, but with the spin Bacchus puts on everything, I have no idea what the real story is. I definitely don't pity this guy - terrorists are s-*BAD WORD*- and deserve to be treated as such. He could be innocent, but the evidence proving his guilt is no doubt classified. In my opinion, the CIA is a bunch of idiots, and they are causing almost all the problems. I mean seriously, why do we trust a civilian agency with such military matters?

50%, your point is absolutely correct, but the way you are going about it is wrong. Terrorists can easily purchase any weapon they want off of the defunct Soviet Union. The problems they have is that the products are old and crappy. They would need to get some sort of artillary piece set up outside Washington, and get a 30 yr old missile past a state-of-the art missile defence system. Your point about nuclear power plants is correct. They are way too fortified for a terrorist to strike. A 747 couldn't come close to the reactor. Airbus is currently constructing a larger jumbo jet, but its extremely doubtfull (greater than 99%) that even it could cause a meltdown. That rumor was just made by people paranoid about nuclear anything. As for government seizing video tape, keep in mind that the Pentagon is still a military installation. Many world leaders, including our some of our allies, would pay high price for the secrets contained inside. Its unlikely that footage can be used against us, but maybe it can. They don't let people on the crash sites of stealth planes, yet this is not considered a conspiracy. If someone took a picture of a crashed F-117, officials would seize the film. Its unlikely anything important is on the picture, but we can't take that chance. However, 50% has a very big right to rant here. Look people, SEPTEMBER 11TH HAPPENED!!! It is not some right-wing conspiracy to get the populace to think their way. It also is not some event overblown by the right, the US populace have every right to be pissed at Islamic Fundimentalists. Sept 11 is the biggest attack the US has suffered from a foreign source since 1812. I mean, the at!@#$%^&*ude from you leftist extremists sicken me. How many terrorists attacks must the world suffer before you admit that we are being attacked by terrorists?

Well, not exactly. One needs to understand how dictatorships work. The dictator cannot run the country on his own, so he needs some supporters. However, due to the way the dictatorship system works, what he wants is a small group of people who love him and hold all the power. Basically, dictorships work by robbing Bob to donate to Bill. Hussein's people were the Shi'a and the Baath party. He robbed everyone else to make them an economic elite. It goes without contention that the Shi'a will not be better off in the end, atleast material wise. But if you think about Iraq before the Ottomans, you can see a nation where people put aside their different ethnicities. Gosh, if Iraqi's knew their own history, they wouldn't even care about their differences. Vile, I don't put much faith in so-called "experts". The real people with the brains and the stones to make the decisions run for office themselves. The "experts" are mere monday morning quarterbackers trying to fulfill their notions of self worth, and not doing a very good job. I'd also rather believe a politician over a newspaper. Politicians in the end need to get votes, so there is a limit to their capability of being dishonest (not that that limit isn't pushed frequently). Newspapers only need to make money, so they can be as dishonest as they choose.

Recombo, that is a criticism best given to the Taliban. Almost all the nations bordering Afghanistan have 100% (ok, 99.9, but you get the idea) literacy rates. Afghanistan has a pathetic 25% or something along those lines. While most of the other nations got their education standard being in the USSR, they still maintained their education, and the Taliban should have atleast tried to educate their populace.

We didn't get burned badly in Iraq or Afghanistan - not any wosre than Bosnia or Kosovo. That is the difference between a media supported conflict and one that isn't. I wouldn't be too sure about Iraq going down in history as a blunder. One thing historians do very well is look at long term patterns, decades at a time. Now, is Iraq going to last for a decade? Probably not. And the thing that going into Iraq did was change the political landscape of the middle east. The first thing it did was give credit to US threats. It barely made the news when various other middle eastern rulers caved to US political pressure after Iraq. In a history book, this would be important. It also changes the public perception of democracy. Formally, demoracy meant that you were either like Israel or like Hussein government. By eliminating the flase belief that Hussein's government was a democracy and by instilling a functional one, it will make democracy much more appealing. The difference here is really perception of time. Liberals tend to think in months, conservatives in years. Historians think in decades, so guess how they are going to view this.

The Abbasid empire (the guys who built Baghdad as their capital). It wasn't a democracy, but it was progressive for their time. They could easily tolerate their neighbors, for they also tolerated European and Asian merchants. It proves that Iraqis have the capability of being more progressive than the rest of the world, and as a matter of fact are better off when they are. If you look at the region throughout history, the time where the nation occupying the region of Iraq was a third world nation were few and far between. Multiple great empires came from there, Sumeria, Babylon, Abbasid, etc. Its almost unnatural for any population occupying that territory to be poor.

Monte, you have no perception of scale. The insurgents are small in number and the damage they do is well overblown. Peace and democracy will take off, there is not nearly enough problems in Iraq to prevent that from happening.

Vile, I admit you are the expert in Star Wars lore. Bacchus, funny. The point is if you take any evil characters in a classic good vs. evil literature can be compaired to the real-life Hussein. Its truly sick when you think about it. These characters are supposed to be pure 100% evil, and Hussein is worse! He is more evil than authors can imagine, and authors of such stories are usually very imaginative. Put it this way. The following are things the US will not do in Iraq: Execute enough people to require m!@#$%^&* graves Use WMDs Silence all opposing opinion (any replies to this statement proves it) Set it up so that one of the next leaders is a man who has already tortured people for recreational reasons. Hide military personell and equipment inside civilian structures over the long term Take money from peasents to build a car collection Set up a mul!@#$%^&*ude of government buildings that serve the same purpose, such as Hussein's palaces (every such building is one less building used for civilian shelter/housing, or generally something USEFULL) Use Iraqi tax dollars to put up statues of Bush Btw, this topic is about terrorists. When did we start talking about Iraq?

Um, a didn't say whether or not they will be better off is "debatable", I said it was indisputable. That is the level of villain that Hussein was - bed enough that just about anybody can replace him and it will be a step up. I know you don't like it when we brandish our enemies as evil, but Hussein was worse than many liturgical personifications of evil you can name. For example: Hussein vs. Darth Vader Used weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction to quell a rebellion: Yes Yes Used torture to get information out of people: Yes Kinda Allowed torture to be done for amusement: Yes No Was once on the "good" side and betrayed it: Yes Yes Set up his son(s) as next leader: Yes Tried to Hid weapons in schools, hospitals, etc. Yes No Darth Vader is obviously a fictional embodiment of evil, and Hussein was worse. That means that Hussein was more evil than the author could either imagine or fit into the story. This doesn't automatically make those who attack him good. However, it DOES mean that he should receive no pity from anyone. It also means that whoever takes over will better practically by default. It may not be "good vs. evil", but it could be "nuetral vs. evil" or "lesser evil vs. greater evil". In all three cases, one should side with the first.

Nothing new there. He didn't exactly say all Americans were unsophisticated though, he said those that support Bush were. You know he thinks that, but he's a little more cautious than that. Alright, so then who among Kerry or Bush is supporting the working man? If Bush is the candidate for those "unsophisticated types", then Bush is the working class supporter and Kerry is catering to the rich, and if you think past the BS over taxes, you could realise this. I mean one example would Bush's Tort law reform (putting caps on "pain and suffering"). He is taking money from the white-collar lawyers and giving it to doctors, which are blue-collar workers, though highly paid and educated. This doesn't seem much on the pay scale. However, doctors actually have a significant "trickle-down", they need so many nurses, supporting staff, pharmacueticals, equipment, etc. that the trickle down theary may actually work here. See, that's what disgusts me about the Democrats. In the 60s, they were great. They were the ones being working class, populist, equitarian, etc. However, by the 80s all they were doing is lip-service. Now, the Republicans are the ones who have dominance in those territories, but idiots remember the 60s and vote Democratic because they assume the party didn't change over 30 years. Pose this question: Which party is more likely to run a black man or woman for president sooner? The Democrats? Heck no. There are very few black people in the upper echelons of the Democratic party. The ones that are there are little more than weak puppets there to fulfill the nostalgia factor. The Republicans are the ones who may run a black person as early as 2008. Two members of Bush's cabinet Powel and Rice, are grade A material to run for president. Bottom line, you may thing Bush appeals to the "unsophisticated types", but really he one being populist and trying to break the pre-set notion that the democrats are the one who are.