mmmcannibalism

not an expert on british tradition but I think the queen serves as an important figure head. In a sense, if the people arent in riot over it I see no reason for it to be a problem.

I think my girlfriend wins, she got like (0,0) or close enough it was over the center point.

[hide=] Well... assassination is a believable charge for me because I have -jokingly- spoken with friends about getting rid of a certain someone but then the person who would fill his place would be even worse. There are, and here is one: there is a known attack on a large surveillance plane carrying 20 navy/marines along with classified information. They are sure of this attack and one of the accomplices is in CIA control. The attack is in 2 hrs and the guy knows exactly which of the 3 planes its going to happen to. They torture him and find out which plane it is and they send F17's to escort the plane to the final destination. Had they not done what they did, 20 more American lives would have been lost because they were too afraid to torture some crazy that only wants "death to the infidel". Would you want someone who wants to kill you hett slightly hurt or 20 Americans dead because your too much of a pussie to torture his [wagon]? If I were to be tortured, which is very unlikely considering my family's history, they would have a damn good reason for torturing a 14 year old, straight A, student. [/hide] fix that quote please, I didnt say that.

sui also means self correct? Its possible we just chose suicide for the aesthetics, at least I think it sounds better.

[hide=] As I scrolled down I could have sworn I saw "genitals" in there somewhere. Zombie killin' music is on Topic, therefore I am: 1. La Grange-ZZ Top 2. Take the Black-Hammerfall 3 Blood and Thunder- Mastodon. An axe would be a given, but depending on where we [you?] go there will be terribly little wood to chop. Doors, maybe, if you remain in the city for whatever reason, but then you can't build with that. Unless it's already been unanimously decided that the woods are the way to go. [/hide] the genitals are in my signature I think we have decided that we will either build a fortress on the roof/upper floors of a skyscraper or go into the woods. A fort in a large clearing in the woods would be ideal, lots of resources and enough open space to set up a defensive line if a hoarde finds us.

Id think you would prefer the 16th edit-- anyone find the 3rd amendment amusing? Not that it isnt reasonable but its only in their because of a specific event.

I get the feeling we will manage to wipe ourselves out somehow, hopefully after we have a non earth base so we get to live on.

Does that extend to Saudi Arabia/the Muslim world? if so, earlier comment rescinded.

Because the president of America is the authority of the entire world, there is nobody below him? He should bow and pay respect to nobody? And what's to say it's just Pr, maybe he actually does have respect for people and isn't just 'acting subservient'. Crazy idea to expect from an American leader, I know :o . actually, I was thinking along the lines of they are both world leaders and therefore should be on equal footing. Unless I am missing a cultural thing, you dont bow to someone you view as your equal.

We need to attempt the solution we used in the phillipines(yes we treated them terribly early on but the solution here is interesting) start building infrastructure up, start spreading good will, keep fighting the enemies on a limited basis that doesnt require civilian casualties. If the people see you as someone that is workign for their interest, they quickly turn against the guerillas that start looking very foolish for fighting the medical care from america

a lot of what Obama did was good in showing support/cooperation my main complaint was the bowing to the saudi arabian king, there is a difference between extending friendship while working together and acting subservient for the sake of pr. secondly, jerusaleam is mutually palestinian and israely, its changed hands a few times in history and the jewish community clearly has some claim to it. The main problem is some of the land israel took during conflicts that was not theirs under the original treaty/UN action that established israel.

arent you allowed to trade noted pouches?

You hit the nail right on the head there. Well said. No. Freedom is more important than safety. So you'd rather die free than live safely? I would.

If a civillian showed up while your house was burning and saved you, would you ask them "Who made you fireman?" Read that post again... then edit it so it isn't as ridiculous. he has a valid point, if noone else will deal with serious threats it falls to the US. The US has made some mistakes but at least it is trying.

agreed, the problem is that this surveillence was limited to conversations between americans and foreigner contacts(I believe all middle east). Secondly, the taps were only supposed to occur if there was reason to believe that the contact might be closely associated with a terrorist organization. If they went beyond this its a bit of a problem, but I dislike overstatements of what happened with these taps.

I think he means something along the lines of teaching it, guess its true we need to keep the old system for labeling things for long enough for everyone to adapt.

yes we should switch to metric, although since its so easy to learn its not really a problem.

4th amendment is protection from illegal search and seizure, if I recall the whole bill it basically lays down that the government/police needs just cause to search/wiretap you. edit-- here is the text extending this to include the fact we have phones now, the gov/police must have probably cause and a specific warrant to search your house or tap your private communications. One note I would like to make is that nothing Bush did was technically against this if the procedure was correct.

yeah the whole wiretapping was overdoing it, not to say we didnt need to check some or all of those people but due process and such should have been required communism and democracy arent directly related, you can have a communistic economy and still allow voting on things such as who will be in charge how to appropriate money etc. Lets be realistic about the witch hunting, although it was a civil rights violation what actually happened isnt that terrible. This isnt something like arresting people for political beliefs or burning someone at the stake, its a small violation of search and seizure that affected very few people directly. If we start hunting down everyone that barely violated any law we would probably have to throw every politician lawyer etc. in jail. FDR violated the constitution quite a few times(with good intent, same could be argued about Bush), Most presidents have done something that could be viewed as illegal. Again, if what Bush had done was a major breach of rights I would be all over hunting down everyone involved, but this would just breed bad will. The torture thing, agree we needed to end waterboarding but I think there is a problem with law here. Waterboarding is on the borderline of torture(no long term physical torture) and is certainly less heinous then a lot of other things we could have been doing. As long as we end it I think its enough of a change; and I dont think we need to go arresting every former white house employee.

jesus was decidedly crucified, its a consensus that Jesus existed and preached something close to what ended up in the gospel, the philosophical debate is whether or not he was the son of god/messiah.

I believe thats unitarian philosophy, noble in thought but it kind of breaks down here. Not going to get into abortion for obvious reasons, so lets look at something more expressive. Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" is a satirous article about eating babies to solve hunger crisis(good read btw). Technically each baby is helping around 4 people survive but that doesnt make it right, while we can sort of equate life to life in what ratio do we equate life to standard of living?

What exactly makes suicide immoral? I understand if you have children it will definetely be harmful to them(therefore immoral) but excluding dependant people is their anything wrong with it?

the UN, when they decided to never hold anyone to international law excluding iraq which was the greatest intellgence failure ever, the UN never does what it is supposed to. Lets consider that NK has nuclear weapons technology and long range missles both of which they were not allowed to have. Lets also consider Iran which is still working on nuclear technology they arent allowed and their happy message that israel needs wiped off of the map. Not warmongering, and I really would like to avoid a war with anyone but the UN waving its fingers angrily wont stop a missle attack.

I cant wait till I get my results back lol 5 weeks is a long time when you actually want to see how you did on a test :lol:

Then equalize the legal benefits.I don't even see why marriages recognized by the church have any legal benefits to be honest, since that doesn't coincide with the purpose of marriage in the eyes of the church. So yeah, move all legal benefits to civil unions only, then we can let the churches marry whoever they want. I believe in america you still need the certificate from the court for marriage to be legal. I do agree with the sentiment, the main thing here is that anyone should be allowed the legal marriage rights but churches can choose to recognize whatever they want.