Aileron

I wouldn't say Afghanistan is worse off, but I'll agree that we did almost abandon it and it really isn't that much better. The problem is that we didn't want to turn Afghanistan into another Israel - a small nation proped up by our money that their neighbors constantly attack. If they fork the bill for their own military, we don't suffer. However, I agree that we really should have given Afghanistan bigger support, because this arguement frankly isn't enough to even convince me. For 9/11, I don't blame the government, I blame us. We wanted peace and the government gave it to us. To prevent the 9/11s from happening again, we need to get meaner to hostiles and nicer to nuetrals. One thing we need to do is repeal that law or agreement forbiding us from !@#$%^&*asinating people. Its better than starting wars, and its easier to make an arguement saying how the one or two victim(s) had it coming. !@#$%^&*asination is atleast a better alternative than war.

The Democrats aren't so much hypocrits as they are very desperate people seeking a way to attack a very strong political opponant.

Dr. Brain, don't bother talking to Unlimited; he has more in common with a brick wall than an intelligent thinker. Live-Wire, Dr. Brain's analysis of the situation is just as valid as yours. The only difference here is opinion - not the level of knowledge or understanding. Overall, that both Bush and Gore got 50% + or - 1 of the vote. Gore got a small fraction of a percent more. However, Bush's votes were spread over multiple regions. If the election was held the next day, the results could easily have been the opposite. Frankly, we had two equally qualified candidates, and we had to pick one. That said, note that the value of democracy is not that the people get to choose the leaders. They masses could easily be wrong about an issue. However, the value of democracy lies in the fact that leaders can be removed by legal means. This is off-topic, please get back to the 9/11 commitee.

good idea. plz impliment this.

Is it just me, or is this 9/11 investigation complete and utter political BS? It seems little more to me than merely another attack Democrats are making against Bush. If it was "the truth" they sought, shouldn't they have done the investigation the first moment they had all the facts? Wouldn't sometime in late 2002 have been more appropriate. Instead, they waited until the spring before an election year. Or we could talk about Richard Clark. His job was to prevent terrorism from happening. He had this job for two decades, and for two decades terrorists got bolder and bolder. He knew Bin Laden was a problem for a long time. Although he had some close calls, he failed to kill or capture Bin Laden. He was a complete and total failure at his job, and has no credibility whatsoever. The only thing supporting this guy is that a lot of people hate Bush, and Bush fired him. One thing for sure is that Bush absolutely couldn't have stopped 9/11 in his 9 months before it. Clinton possibly could have in 8 years, but even that is unlikely. Bush is recieving a lot of flak for going into Iraq. The target, Hussein, was the easiest political target in the world, yet Bush could barely justify the war. Take the same situation, only worse. Replace the potential WMDs with potential conventional weapons. Replace Saddam Hussein with a figure who at the time was hated a lot less. Would any President have been able to justify invasion under these cir-*BAD WORD*-stances? Probably not, and its a logical contradiction for anyone against War in Iraq to think so. 9/11 was caused by our unwillingness to attack weaker nations. We think them being weaker than us automatically gives them some moral high ground. Bin Laden attacked the USS Cole, but we would not retaliate against Afghanistan because they are weaker than us, and we risk being a bully. The only thing that will prevent other acts of terrorism is to use heavy handed tactics every once in a while; not too often, but often enough that it forms a balance.

You gonna buy one of those $1000 character names?

nice

*gets seaten alive* *wonders for a moment what "seaten" means* *recruits sharks into Ninja Death Squad* *sends Ninja Death Squad Sharks after Naed* *NDSS activate Stealth and Cloak, and begin to stalk Naed*

Its more true than 90% of all news stories. Seriously, I have no respect for any candidate who has an "anybody but _____" approach. Its nothing more than a sign of his own weak policy.

True story.... Little David was in his 5th grade class when the teacher asked the children what their fathers did for a living. All the typical answers cameup - -fireman, policeman, salesman, etc... David was being uncharacteristically quiet and so the teacher asked him about his father. "My father's an exotic dancer in a gay cabaret and takes off all his clothes in front of other men. Sometimes, if the offer's really good,he'll go out to the abandoned car in the alley with some guy and have sex with him for money." The teacher, obviously shaken by this statement, hurriedly set the other children to work on some coloring, and took little David aside to ask him, "Is that really true about your father?" "No," said David, "He works for John Kerry's Presidential Campaign but I was too embarr!@#$%^&*ed to say that in front of the other kids!!"

311 is my best record

*watches Naed jump off cliff and hit canyon wall below* *drops huge boulder off cliff* *roadrunner walks up to Naed's body* *a big shadow looms overhead* Roadrunner> Beep Beep *roadrunner runs away* *boulder falls on Naed's head*

Sorry, but you are advocating the force of change. It is you who has to provide a sound arguement in favor of it. Making this a civil rights issue can work, but you have to prove that it is in fact a civil rights issue in the first place.

Yay! The mods are gone! *starts getting ready to hold a %12 party*

They probably do, and I can't blame them. I hold the same opinion myself and that is one of the reasons I actually support the war in Iraq. I do not blame Muslims for voicing out. What we are doing to them in Iraq is prima facie wrong. However, it is for the greater good in the end, so I think that we need to silence that voice.

I wouldn't worry too much though. Smaller countries can actually fend for themselves. Most or our current problems come from the fact that many people think they can't, and get a larger country to play charity organization.

(OOC-It isn't "Aileron's platypus", because the Platypus is the one in charge.) *Platypus sends Ninja Death Squad after clones* *Clones beat up NDS* *Platypus then beats up the clones himself.* *Gets in an 18-wheeler* *chases after Naed* *attempts to run Naed over* *Misses* *Jumps out of truck moments before it careens over a cliff* *grabs a Bola* *throws Bola at Naed's legs*

Don't think I'm conservative on this issue, I'm neutral. I merely wanted to apply some resistance to an otherwise one-sided discussion. I don't care if they are allowed to marry or not. However, if they are allowed, I want it to have its own reason. I do not want it to be because certain races were oppressed a century ago. Equality is not absolute. Some people are born blind, but nobody thinks it wrong that airlines do not hire blind pilots. Some people are shorter than others, yet there is no protest over the lack of midgets in the NBA roster. Some people are smarter than others, but there is no desire to give the mentally re-*BAD WORD*-ed extra aid to get into med. school. The question here is whether denying a gay man the right to marry is more like denying a black man the right to vote, or like denying a handicap man the right to be a firefighter.

Yeah, we are trying to have an intelligent conversation here. I think governments are rather unsuited to the job. It used to be that religion and organised charities would take care of the poor. Now, that role is gradually being replaced by the government. It shouldn't be as such. Also, there is a problem with the upper-class' social status dependancy. It used to be that judgements on who is the richest were dependant on how much money they spent. The richest had the biggest house, the nicest car, and several buildings such as colleges and libraries were named after them. Now, it is based on how much they make. The former enabled the money to quickly leave their hands into the construction worker, !@#$%^&*embly line worker, and student. Today, it just ends up rotting in their bank account.

*raises Paine as anti-Szombie1337 zombie* *hides behind Paine*

*watches as Naed starves to death* *replaces hollow s-*BAD WORD*- with compact supercomputer* ~Aileron modle 2-7 online and ready to recieve orders~ ~recieving commands~ ~Destroy all zombies~ *casts Sunburst* *all undead (zombies and ghosts) are turned to dust*

It is correct that they do it to get their voices heard. The problem is that in many cases they do not deserve a voice. When you weigh the needs of a few hundred extremists verses the need of the 5 billion people in the world, there voice is and should be drowned out.

Polygamy is not the same as same-sex couples. You aren't going to convince me that one of your ancestors was the product of a same-sex sexual encounter, save if you believe evolution and count some obscure single-sex bacteria. That statement requires that one accept Christianity as a premise. If you aren't Christian, this statement really shouldn't apply to you and you should use the statement that uses the Darwinist model as the premise. I regret I didn't include one for every religion, but you should know what your religion says. BTW, knowledge exists whether it is known or not. Scientists view themselves as 'discovering' knowledge rather that 'making' it. Take the example of a book. All books contain knowlege of some form or another. Lets say for arguement's sake that some book was magically conjured out of nothingness. Would it imply that if nobody read that book, that the knowledge within doesn't exist? There would be ink on the pages, whether someone has looked at it or not. The knowledge within just hasn't been discovered or learned yet. It really requires you to be a scientist to understand. Its an irrelevant point anyway. No Dav, I don't think its anything with not wanting to accept homosexuality. Its that people want a spot reserved for traditional marriage. The problem is that homosexuals won't view themselves as equals unless they too occupy that spot. It could be any spot; it is dependant on what traditional couples have. I say they should be allowed a union that is equivolent to marriage in every way. However, I really don't think anybody will not draw a distinction between a gay couple and a traditional one. It really should be given a different term. Note that this term should be reserved for gay couples, and shouldn't be something such as "Civil Union", which sounds like a business partnership.

Let me start off by agreeing that this argument is stupid. That said, please note that nobody from the US started this topic. Also note that it was the EU side that kept this topic going for 4 pages and kept reviving it. That isn't an excuse for lashing back. However, I request you forgive me for suc-*BAD WORD*-ing to the temptation after 4 pages of US flaming in this topic and about a dozen more in other topics. I am only human, and after a while I get tired of all this mindless criticism, especially when the source of them is in no position to talk. Well, both the US and EU are selfish internationally. However, so is everyone else. Actually, I don't think such behavior is wrong. It is the role of governments to seek the best for their people. If another people has to suffer, it may be wrong, but it is not the role of a government to decide. The governments of nations are not in a position to be moral agents. What I was referring to was domestic policy, which should be the polar opposite. In domestic policy, governments should try to make the most people wealthy. That was my criticism of Europe. I view it as okay for a nation to rob the rest of the world of resources, it is after all their role in life. However, it is wrong for them to take that wealth and then not distribute it among their people. The US has a problem with doing this. The capitalist system does not contain a theory on social justice. However, Europe is worse. US billionaires are well known, and there is no secret to the power they posses. European billionaires aren't given such open power, but rather wield hidden power behind the scenes. That is why the US grew and Europe receded. The US admitted we have hawks and doves, and tried to favor the doves in every decision. Europe denied the hawks existed, and favored them behind the scenes.

What I was saying is that... If you believe the Christian model of Creation, the father/mother/child family was inspired by God and thus came before man was created. If you believe the Evolutionary model, it (although not marriage in the official sense) was used by the forms of life that pre-existed Homo Sapians. The point is, oh so patient one, that the traditional definition of Marriage is the oldest and most intergral part of our sociaty ever brought to the table. It should not be treated as a add-on to the Civil Rights movement. At very least, it should be given its own time and its own unique difficulties. It shouldn't be allowed to follow in the wake of the movement for racial equality. By the way, science doesn't change weather a human mind is behind it or not. If there is no rationale beings around, the CONCEPT or the STUDY of science doesn't exist, but science itself can be regarded as a universal constant. The problem with the French Revolution wasn't the chaos following, but the revolutions following. Every new government afterwards was put in power about 20 years and then a complete seperate revolution to remove it. This was until the 3rd Republic was established, by foreign control mind you. The War of Sucession admitingly wasn't much better. It was followed by the War of 1812. My point was that the proper way to hold a revolution is 'once and done'. In order to do this, one must have a strong central reason behind it. I didn't mean "don't change tradition" in the strong sense. That arguement is practically untenable and both of us know it. What I meant was that one shouldn't change tradition without a reason. Slavery was abolished because it violated the freedoms of the slaves. Women's rights were given because it doubled the number of intelligent people in leadership. I'm not saying that such a reason does not exist in this case. All I'm saying is that we should know what it is before we change anything.