Defender2516

No matter how you define or slice the orange at hand, they are basically saying "hugging is wrong" either way. And whats best about it probably is, once those teachers/principals go home, I bet they hug their children/husband/wifes. Hypocrites ftl.

I'm thinking so. It was tragic then, tragic now. A repost? Someone has posted this before?

WARNING! Intelligence Level Reaching Critical Levels! *attempting to interrogate and reduce IQ* *37 seconds later* All Attempts have FAILED Last Option to exterminate intelligence activated! *Interrogation Complete*

Comming from a American <--- (me), America Sucks.

Which brings me to my next point. Any girls in here wanna hug me? Back on topic.. apparently the rules are "NO AFFECTION".. now what implys as "affection" and what not are apparently decided by the school board AKA "There opinion"

It kinda makes you think, what if it was her brother and they didn't know, would they give her detention? Also, her friends were completely fine with her hugging them. These are 12-13 year old girls, this has been happening ever since school was invented. Now "showing affection" is a bad thing. Somehow they put that it was "poor taste", ect in their rules for doing such a act. Well you better not hug your husband/wife when you get home, its "poor taste". Really, how stupid can humans get. I think we might hit the negative IQ's soon.

Finnland isn't invicible. As long as there is human element, it can be a corruptable place.

This is not a golden era. No matter how much knowledge or technology comes to make our lifes at ease, one thing can never change. The Human.

Ahh thanks for all the replies! I"m trying to beef up my computer for Crysis! Here is my specs. 2.13 ghz E6400 Duo Processor 7900GT Graphics Card 1GB DDR2 800Mhz Ram 250 GB Sata Hard drive So far I can play the game on medium with 20-30 fps respectively. When I try to put it on high, it locks up when I get to big areas, however its hard to take it off since its so beautiful! So I thought about adding more ram, so thats why I'm adding this ram discussion! Using the task manager, I'm using up 1.5 Ram Wise which is 50% of which I don't have! So any help on what I could do to beef up my computer? I was hoping I could buy another 7900GT to SLI but as luck would have it, they don't sell the one I bought on new egg anymore. Any advice would be appreciated! Also, I tried to find adjusting my cpu in the Bio's but I can't find it.

Hi guys, i'm looking to learn as much information as possible about Ram, as I plan to buy another 1GB stick for my comp so i'll have 2GB for Crysis! I bought my ram previously at KC Computers, this is what I got from them. 1GB PC2-6400 800MHz DDR2 RAM 240-pin DIMM ~$65 Okay, look at this information, I understand alittle about it. 1GB (2 pieces) - ???? 800Mhz (speed) DDR2 (type of ram) 240-pin (not sure) DIMM (not sure) So whats the -6400 mean? Does this improve if I get a higher number? My computer accepts 240 pin ram, does this mean I cannot accept a higher/lower pin ratio ram? Whats DIMM? Can i use 2 seperate rams from different manafacture brands if they are excatly the same thing? Last question: Where can I buy a 1GB (1 stick please!), about the same as I have above, thats cheap? :D

While they may hold up a "christian tag", they are far from christian. They must have ripped out the new testatment and only read the old one a million times. Besides, their too stupid to think that if God really was punishing us, they do not have to do anything then, its Gods work being done.. I don't really recall where he said "jump in, lend me a helping hand at hurting these folks!". Besides, Gods not like that at all.. Jesus.. some people are SOOO STUPID. Its like they got droped when they were kids.. over and over and over and over again.

A nuke keeps another nuke in check, much like a gun killer would most likely keep him from shooting someone else who has a gun. Now usually if a killer has a gun, he may still shoot at the other guy with the other gun in hopes of killing him before he gets shot, but with nukes, there is no "hope" of surviving inless your making plans in a bomb shelter. Lets face it, nukes have never been used except in Japan 70 years ago and thats only because Japan had no nukes of its own. Now that major countries have nukes, you just can't go strollin in there anymore and attempting to take over the place. Its come to the point that military might is not the best option for destroying a nation. All you have to do is destroy its economy, and its military will fall with it. Then you take over.

I took my neices and newphew trick or treating. Was fun.

People like you give me a headache. Dammit out of asprin. 1. I never claimed I was the oracle of wisdom, you did. 2. History backs up my statement, try looking it up sometime.3. I never said Israel was 100% innocent and no one is.. moron. More insults please.. Back to the subject. Its hard for me to believe that America can have "uber" defense shields against nuclear attacks but struggle with wild fires. I don't believe we are as prepared as one would hope. ok ok I have nothing better to do for 14 minutes so I shall do my best to reply. 1. No [cabbage] Sherlock, and the only reason I claimed that is because you came up with a hypothesis claiming that I was taken back by this obscure and unjust statement so, I questioned its credibility bluntly I may confess. To which I get the reply of I may say I have looked up history, in fact I have been looking up history for the past 10 years, but for some reason this prophesy of events that is going to come in the future escapes me- so I plead to you kind Sir, that you would show me this HISTORY in some form of a link. But it gets better because then I get accused of being abusive and twisting words. I already know this conflict between me and you = infinity because your a moron, and I do not like to debate with idiots since they never "get it" and only think their view point is correct.. so let me say it bluntly. I never said America and Russia was a impossibility going to war, and I the likelyhood of them vs Isreal and the Arabs, it would most likely vote for Isreal due to the heavy conflict (yes actually fighting and blowing people up, something you wouldn't understand), compared to the political standpoints of words vs words (not guns and nukes) that America and Russia are currently having. Also, your a moron simpley because you expect kind replys while being a all intelligent being with no real reason why you believe what you believe. Its the "its my way just because I said so.." mentality Yet I get called a moron, even if I was being abusive(which I beg to differ) calling me names is putting one in the position of a hypocrite. I already knew ahead of time I would be called a hypocrite by you when I wrote that, but I couldn't help state the fact that you are one. and also you said I bolded the text for you to see better- see I am kind. You said everything which is meant to be sarcastic I gather, because the following up statement which I underlined is contradicting it. Hence your saying EVERYTHING meaning NOTHING. Assuming is bad, you should simpley jsut ask, and your wrong. How about looking up some RECENT History in the last 30-40 years since Isreal came to be a nation. They have always been blamed for aggression when it was Arab nations who launched attacks first. Even now, Isreal is going to get the blame if they do no comply with the peace treaties for giving up 3 territory lands, inspite that the Arabs have not held a single promise to theirs (proven by history). I really don't need to provide you a link, you just need to grab a dam book once in awhile or use google. This will be my last reply towards you in this topic. You can waste your words comming up with another more insulting "i'm all better than you" response if you wish, considering your a noob i'm sure you will, but like I said before, people like you make me run out of Asprin. I don't even know you and you come up in here swinging insults in every direction and start demanding claims. Why don't you go do some reasearch or provide a decent counter argument on why you think WHY NOT. However thats probably to much to handle for you oh mighty oracle of wisdom. :roll:

Some people here aren't up to date with reality. They have the "i'm invincible" mentality. "Oh noez, we won't get nuked eva.. lol11zz". Tell that to the japan people. People like you give me a headache. Dammit out of asprin. 1. I never claimed I was the oracle of wisdom, you did. 2. History backs up my statement, try looking it up sometime. 3. I never said Israel was 100% innocent and no one is.. moron. More insults please.. Back to the subject. Its hard for me to believe that America can have "uber" defense shields against nuclear attacks but struggle with wild fires. I don't believe we are as prepared as one would hope.

If WW3 starts, its going to start from the middle east with Isreal and the Arabs, not Russia and the USA. Amazing how everything is Isreals fault tho when it defends itself from being killed.. =/

I couldn't help but Lol at that statement. In this world of technology, we have TONS of countless entertainment values for fun, if you think lowering your IQ alittle bit more is "fun", well maybe you have drunk too much.

dsavi_x4 As a pacifist, I say that no one should have a nuke. While I do agree with the concept of pacifisim, I don't think its a realistic one. Jaziek but then we'll be sitting ducks for the aliens!! If we get attacked by aliens, which means they would have superior technology considering they can invade us and enter our orbit, I think nukes would do little to help. I know your just being funny but this is also a unrealistic goal :) NorthernHero I agree with dsavi_x4. BUT I doupt it will happen soon. The big nations which have nukes (U.S.A, Russia, China) could (in utopia) make a deal, in which they dissample their nukes but in reality they propably would just hide them and then bring them up again if war comes (which in utopia wouldn't happen..) I think from a Military stance, You do not want to give up your best weapon. The only way for nukes to be dismantled is only if the Military has a more powerful, diverse weapon at their disposal that eliminates nukes as obselete. So in this situation, you can never really get rid of nukes inless you trade if off for a bigger and more dangerous threat. StrOwez I'm not Hitler so I can't decide what Hitler would do. Sorry. Alot of people make guestimates of todays current governements yet have no experience themselfs in the actually field but mere knowledge only. Also, not everyone is fully adware of all the governments plans and threats. But we still like to fiddle with our thoughts on whats the most appropriate action with the knowledge we do have, and having quite a bit of history on Hilter, I say we could make some pretty good estimates on his actions. No one can really say your wrong either in this guess. sycosis5 dsavi_x4 wrote: As a pacifist, I say that no one should have a nuke. I agree 100% noone should be alowed a weapon of such destruction. I agree, but in reality this just won't happen. This is the consquence of knowledge increasing in our time, the information age. I think we should just be happy nothing "worse" has been invented yet. In 20 years, I just see the weapons getting more powerful. Lionheart_0 Canadians should get nukes, and only Canadians. Although It IS illegal to have any nuclear weapon on Canadian soil, I'm pretty sure we would know how to use them better then any country, and in what way to use them. And seriously, if Canada had a nuke how many of you would care? Still only have a kayak with a pee shooter for our navy. I personally wouldn't mind if Canada had nukes. However, them being the only one could corrupt their good hearted judgement. Look at the USA for example. Its not the 100% angel, but they better morals than Hilter, yet when they was the only one who possesed a nuke, they instantly became a leading superpower and even used such weapons with no fear of relatiation. If Canada was the only one, they may very well use them due to the fact who could retaliate? Satenza The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a useless waste of life, Germany was failing, Japan had already looked as if it was backing down. It is often argued that the deployment of them was more of a warning to Stalin than a warning to Japan, but of course it had the opposite effect. USA's foreign policy wins again. I am more pro-reduction of nuclear weapons in all countries but I do not think it is very realistic. So instead of having tens of arms races across the world by letting everyone have them the super powers should be the only ones to be allowed to develop them. So those other countries do not have to waste their money on making nukes, they can spend it on real issues not hypothetical never-going-to-happen issues. At first thought, I did agree, why waste money on a nuke, however, that really only applys if your nation is not under attack. If one day, you was to ever defend your land, a nuke would be mighty useful, a governement could not just simply invade like normally, they would have to spread troops thin incase of a nuclear attack which would make it a all more long and tedious battle. Nukes are really like "I win/I Lose" cards at the same time.

This topic is to discuss modern day times and troubles in a debate on "who should really get a nuke?". A Nuke is a very powerful tool that should not be triffled with. It can kill millions of people in a instant. Its the last line of Defense should anyone even dare to go to that measure from complete take over from a enemy invasion. Its damage and devestation is compared to none, and its not just the intital blast either, fall out radiation that lasts for several years will plague its rested spot. Now there is already a thread concerning if Iran should have a nuke, and there is MANY view points you could use to tackle to vote for or against the idea, but I prefer a entirely new discussion fixed on the idea should "everyone" considering a nation, should recieve a nuke for self-defense? I personally say no to the idea, but I'm intrested in other people's views, as the best way to get the right perspective is to know other perspectives you may have missed or not considered. Now before we all start answering yes or no, I would like to raise 1 more thing into the debate that would make it alittle more intresting. Back in World War II, The USA used 2 nuclear bombs that were deployed on 2 japanese cities. However this was after the death of Hilter. The question is, if Hilter had a nuke and the USA still was equiped with their 2 nukes (not used on Japan yet), would Hilter have used it? And if so, what target? Now some of you may argue a valuble target for a single nuke may be on USA Soil to halt the endless USA reinforcements invading the western flank, or perhaps it would have been extreemly useful in D-Day to wipe out not only 100,000 soldiers but end our supremancy in naval warefare, considering most of our ships were there at that time. In my opinion, he would do none of those things. This should make for a very intresting debate, as Hilter could have realisticly and possibly achieved his goal of true genocide against jews by possesing a single nuke. All he would have to do is put all the jews in a big area and hit the shiny red button that says Genocide Complete! But then again he might have not used it at all. As the Orginal Poster, here is the rules for this particular topic. 1. Your thoughts and opinions and even hard facts are welcome into this debate. 2. No Intelligent Insults (flames) please, a insult is still a insult, even if you are right. 3. Religion View Points are welcome. If your opinion is based on a religious point of view, share it. 4. For those who counter-attack other posters, you may do so, but you may not attack their religions views. Example of what NOT to do. Poster1: I believe by God, he would not let Hilter use the nuke. Poster2: Fallacy, you must first prove God exists and that he would have any connection at all in the physical realm before you can make such a claim. (This is attacking someone's religous viewpoint) Example of what TO do. Poster1: I believe by God, he would not let Hilter use the nuke. POster2: Possibly, but then again, we are still unsure if God plays a role in world affairs. I believe.. (This is not..) Let the Debate Begin

Okay, so your saying that because Iran will basically be a new golf course if attempting to launch a nuke, that will stop them from using the nuke? Instead, since they apparently wont' be using it.. they can now play "real threats" with Israel? Am I missing something here? Isreal suffers from constant threats already on all sides and sucide bombers and is EVEN negotiating to give up land for peace and you want Iran to have a nuke? Isreal only wants to live in peace where its at.. all its neighbors around it who seem to have a personal problem with it being there just because their jealous or from personal hatred. So once again.. why are we letting a nation who openly wants to destroy Isreal and wants no peace.. acquire itself a nuke? Trust me.. if they got people who blow themselfs up.. I doubt a quick and fast incentergrated death isn't much of a problem for them.

You sir, are a fool. Not everyone has a good willed heart. Why don't you go off and give those "nukes" who everyone is suppose to apparently have one now.. to a terrorist willing to kill himself and as many people as possible. HAVE YOU NOT BEEN WATCHING THE NEWS? Tons of innocent people have been killed from people who are bent on killing others for their religion. If you really think Iran is building up a nuclear supply for DEFENSE purposes, you are sadly mistaken. You must live in this strange weird bubble where utopia exists. Hell, while we are at it, lets equip all Americas future killers with guns right now, i'm sure they will do the right thing, after all, everyone's gotta protect themselfs, right? The leader of Iran OPENLY admits its hatred for Isreal, and tells its people to do anything to destroy them. Yeah, go ahead and give em a nuke.. i'm sure their population is a acceptable wasteland for the assured destruction of Isreal. Besides, they get 72 virgins, what the hell, give em a nuke right now!

I personally hate corperations due to the fact that they exploit many things to pinch every living penny out of a person's life while they sit on a pyramid of cash without a care in the world, other than to make their pryamid taller. On the other hand, I could not have a private business with socialism and thus would be reduced to a 8-5 hour job reguardless of wealth status as its distributed by the governement. Overall, I would go with capitalism simpley because you have a choice. People can break corperations by simpley not "buying" from them ever again. (Thus why you see so many "we honestly really do care about you!" ads all the time when they don't). Socalism IMO, can be too easily abused by the government, and I believe they have far to much power as it is.

How Do You Know When It's Your Time To Quit? When your 22 years old, working 5 days a week only to hear from every other player.. "Dam, I don't want to go to school".

That is horrible. I can see some mental conditions being blacklisted for obvious medical reasons, but people with post traumatic stress pose no danger to themselves or others. This, however is a bill I don't see passing. The republicans, along with a band of pro gun democrats, will stop it. Thats what I don't believe.. you would be so shocked or suprised what gets "passed" in this world now days without you even knowing it.