Saryctos

That's exactly what the FAQ states the use of astrology in the question was for.

Couldn't they have just asked if you believed in fate or destiny? Why use astrology to get this answer?

In many countries without toilet paper, isn't the left hand primarily used for 'wiping'?

I'm aware that it may verywell produce false information. In the same sense I would assume the intelligence agencies know this aswell and would hopefully incorporate false information screening into the process. I'm against using torture as a means to force a confession, but for forcing information flow out of a prisoner it can be effective. If after torturing someone you then do a psychological interrogation you can always intimidate them with so much as hinting of torturing them again. what of tickling people? if you subjected the propper people to it(those who are tickelish) I'm sure that they would see that as a form of torture as well.

I see nothing wrong with using certain forms of torture or painful experiences to coerce informaiton out of wartime prisoners. They should be glad they aren't dead.

It's potatoes and oil, I know it's not health food. But did I ever have a decision made for me when choosing to order a supersized meal? absolutley not. This sort of argument about how they use psychology to 'manipulate me to their will' is bullshit. It's that exact attitude that this kind of movie would push on you to believe aswell.

I actually asked at the drivethrough window if they "did supersizing anymore". The reply was "only drinks". I actually cannot get a supersized fry, mainly due to this movie and subsequent fallout. Because I like french fries, and when I can't order a larger than average ammount of them because of the effect of a very poorly done 'shockumentary' it makes me wonder what else will be deemed 'dangerous' for me and subsequently disapear. It's almost like the inverse argument of fascism where people make it appear as though they're pushing extra large orders of fries on people, so they demonize anf destroy the option to do so, trading 'freedom for safety'. Obviously it's just fries for now, but the mentality in all forms of media is there. Take smoking for example. The obnoxious ammount of taxation(I would call explotation) for cigarettes is out of control, but the populace is just fine with it because of the anti-smoking agenda presented in popular media. Lots of leftists would point to Bush as trying to bring about a new form of fascism, but they themselves have already succeeded at doing so, and I'm not pleased with it.

Isn't there a massive cash reward out for Osama? You would think that if he had found him, they'd be cashing in, and there would be some word of it. Also, if he had found him and didn't say anything of it to the gov't I'd be quite upset at him(moreso than I already am for the fact that you can no longer supersize french fries at my local McDonald's).

You're right, it's coming from the US media =P

Screw 'em, I'm not a very big fan of unions in this day-and-age*. They just aren't necessary anymore. AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH sorry, being from around south east michigan, I really couldn't help but laugh at the notion of autoworkers making 5$ an hour(although if you weren't talking about autoworkers I appologize for the misunderstanding, but in a thread about unions I figure you were aiming at the UAW) It's more around the figure of 28$ + benefitts. although GM is starting new hires at only 14$ an hour these days to swing things around in their favor a bit.

I really feel it has a lot to do with the fact that people generally pass blame and elevate themselves over one another. If a group makes a mistake, you can have a way to make it look as though it wasn't your fault. If a single person has an idea which competes with your own, you would instantly start thinking of ways they could be wrong, or 'how they didn't do it right'; trying to diminish the ideals to make your own superior. Where if it's a group you may feel that someone else has already taken the time to question a few of the same doubts. And like the above, you don't feel like you have to commit to it, since you can go along with an idea untill it's not popular and distance yourself from it if necissary*.

His policy may be all well and good...but how many scrotums does he have on his stick?

So, healthcare in the UK is free? None of it gets paid for by your taxes?

The health insurance system is really what's broken.

The ratings system has nothing to do with any laws, as the ratings themselves are created by the ESRB which has no actual authority(In America. Apparently elsewhere there actually are laws. Sorry for not remembering we have plenty of brits and kiwis on this forum =P).

I'm pretty sure that there are no laws regulating the sales of video games. It's just that practically all of the major retailers keep it as their policy. For the most part I think we allow religious views to go un-touched for the simple reason that to challenge someone's moral viewspoints would be akin to trying to 'convert them'. Unless you're doing things in a civilized debate it can really rub people the wrong way, and over time I think people have just generally avoided religious discussions because it never ends well. This is kind of like how usually trying to talk politics on the internet never ends well without keeping order in the discussion.

If energy = mass(over simplification) then if either side of that equation were hyopthozised to be 0(the OP), wouldn't that mean that whatever you were talking about was equal to 0 ie. non-existant? Therefore, a photon has a rest mass when it doesn't exist. Having 0 mass, and 0 energy, there are currently 0 ways of observing this.

Definately, I certainly understand what you're saying, as I worked for jackson hewitt(tax prep company). I didn't do the tax returns, but worked on the computers and went through the training course*if I ever needed to do it. I should have worded it a bit diferently, as what the overall meaning was that poor people tend to actually spend their income. Thus, taxing spending would hurt them more than the wealthy who can afford to hold onto money.

do you really think people who work at McD's are paying 30% income tax??? Most of those loopholes come from congress pushing through tax changes too fast, trying to cash in on the wealthy. Problem is, when you don't write new tax code correctly the poorer people end up at the short end of the stick.

fair tax would hurt the poor far more than the rich simply because poor households are usually spending all of their income on things they need to live, where as the rich(or anyone with 'spending money') can afford to hold onto their money and save up(which wouldn't be taxed). And if you're in the poor house, you'll be paying max price for just about everything since you won't have enough free time(from forseeably* working constantly) for do-it-yourself projects which can decrease costs.

When someone enters the country and bombings seem to follow them around, do you really want them out and about?

It should also be noted that you've only been here a month. Not exactly a good sampling of the ups and downs of the politics forum.

Well, there goes my respect for the nobel peace prize. Although I can't say I cared much before, since Carter has one aswell.

yes.

Percieved nothing, there were plenty of actual soviet agents.