ParanoiA

I can't get past level 6. I've given up. I don't understand why I can't get outside the box enough to understand what's going on. I've read the hints and I have no idea what to do with A B C X Y Z 7th 5th 1st...argh!!!

I can't believe anyone would seriously suggest this infringes on the rights of anyone. I don't care if you're literally eating a litterbox full of kitty crap. It's none of your business. Of course they shouldn't be arrested, prosecuted - absolutely nothing. You should be able to eat this on national TV during prime time while sitting at the table with the president. That's called freedom...

The problem with that is it's not pragmatic. In the case of Israel, it's actually practical for them to move rather than continue killing and being killed for centuries to come. Simply because there's just a few million of them rather than hundreds of millions, such as the case with the US and USSR.

I liked how John Gibson, from Fox news, gloriously displayed his short-sighted stupidity politicizing the pluto planetary status issue by calling the IAU "historical revisionists" and argued that he learned pluto was a planet in the 3rd grade... I got a great laugh watching the world's whitest conservative moron whine about astronomy.

Sure. I think it would be better because they are dramatically outnumbered by people who hate them and who's religion advocates their destruction. America's support of the state of Israel is constantly used as an excuse by the Arab region to hate us and drags us into this centuries long childish mess. All because of a bad real estate decision. But, like I said, it would only make it better, it wouldn't solve a damn thing. They'd still terrorize us and the Jews where ever they moved. That's what they do. I didn't go into more detail earlier because I think there was already a thread on this, and I went on and on about it. I figured you all would be bored with my rehash.

So how does he keep getting re-elected? I thought he was extremely unpopular in the UK. I wonder if it's similar to the Bush polarization. If you watch TV, listen to music or discuss politics at work, you'd think the whole country hates the president. But, come election time, he manages to get at least 51% of the vote. As far as an exit strategy, I was gonna dump my country for the UK! Maybe Holland is more my speed. Sure looks nice on television...

It would be better, but that's it.

Ok, I want to know why she left and why she came back. If you're going to share your personal life, then let's get the whole story. Is this some kind of open relationship request on her part? Or is she tired of you spending all this time in this forum rather than paying attention to her? Did she read some of your posts? I had this girlfriend once that had butterface and I was messed up when she broke up with me. But then I hooked up with a better chick that didn't have butterface, and now I'm married to a hottie.

I said the administration, not the FBI or CIA. It could also be that Bush is trying to protect the military personnel involved in all of this. There is an undetermined amount of abuse going on in Guantanamo, but how much of it is sick fun and how much of it is done with desparate intentions? Bush could be somewhat conflicted considering some of this abuse may have resulted in gaining intelligence that has already saved some lives or helped nab other terrorists.

I don't see how it hurts Bush for this war crimes act to remain in place. The article says: What's criminal about the administrations actions thus far? Either way, they shouldn't be tampering with the war crimes act. Bush should man up rather than weasel out of it.

Actually the size of support should indicate the size of the issue. If it's a small issue, then why should the entire country go out of their way to deal with it? And how is that any different than the status quo?

If I were to make the case that Christianity flat out is not guilty of these things I would also be wrong. And since I have no vested interest in that outcome, I'd rather be diplomatic and concede its possibility. I have stated several times the problems I have with Islam in general. Since christianity seems to have put that mentallity in the past, it becomes irrelevant to the present - other than mere academics. Could you support that statement? If that's true, then that's a landmark discovery. Everyone keeps talking about how peaceful Islam is, and how the Islamic terrorists have "distorted" the religion for their purpose. If Muhammad preached violent conquest, then that would put that entire argument to rest wouldn't it?

Sounds like we agree on this for the most part. I describe myself as a libertarian for simplicity's sake, but I can't really be defined that way since there are so many issues with it still. I guess that goes for everybody really, except the radicals you mentioned. I share your concern and recognize the impersonal nature of larger groups, but I sincerely believe this would be a dynamic value depending on the importance of the issue. If it becomes a big deal in the media and it truly angers americans then it will be dealt with, especially when we're used to organized protest and etc. I don't know if this style of governing as ever really been tried or not. Most governments in history seem to thirst for control and oppression. It would be interesting to read about an applied libertarian government somewhere in the world.

No, actually I believe that's an attitude that assumes it's none of anybody's business how capable of acting on their own best interests you think they are. Personally, I don't care for somebody deciding for me what I can or can't do based on their assumption of what's best for me. Like motorcycle helmets, cigarettes, marjiuana, alcohol, aspirin, atheism, food...etc. Where is your idea of the logical end?

I hope you mean worthless since he didn't get elected rather than worthless because he did and he was horrible.

I think it's a tasteless idea and I can't wait to watch it. Sad isn't it? I'm not sure if I dislike it because Bush is an acting president or if I dislike it because it feels like an attack on my country's politics. I'd be inclined to enlist the help of Oliver Stone to make a movie about executing a handful of spineless European leaders in Madison Square Garden. Which is why I should never be president. If the movie is really what they're selling in that article it may not be too bad, but I doubt that's the case.

No, the government should not control it, in my opinion. But I'm curious why there hasn't been a competing brand that advertises less nicotine as a selling point? Oh, that's right...no advertising allowed for cigarettes. I guess there's very little advantage to competing on that level when there's no way to get the message out to the smokers. I wonder if the anti-smoking zealots thought of that one.

Wouldn't it be awesome? That would be a great problem to have. I agree, but with all of the regulation going on and trumped up checks you're putting him on a ten foot chain. So how well can he guard your warehouse?

The problem with that is my money is spent on it. Why should I have to pay a dime towards someone else's problem? Charity is based on contribution, free will contribution. There are certain things I do think should be forced on us to have to pay for in terms of welfare - like veterans, the disabled...etc. But welfare for a perfectly able person is ridiculous and creates an entitlement attitude and embraces poverty as a culture. Look how awful welfare has been abused. Even when not abused, it's still aweful. At one point, a few years ago, we spent over $50,000 per recipient - administration and bureaucracy costs. We could have cut a check for 25,000 dollars per recipient and spent half the money, and that would be more money than I made per year WORKING, taking care of my wife (who did not work) and two kids. I could go on all day about the terrors and failures of welfare but it should already be well known. Not to mention the asinine idea of taxing some poor guy's check just to turn around and give him welfare. If we let him keep all of his money, he wouldn't need welfare. A government's job is to mandate order, civil protection from external forces, establish currency...etc - it will always be about control. Even anarchy has to be protected from control. So working that into these ideologies is fruitless. The ideologies, I think, already take that into consideration. They are just logical designs for operation within the vaccum of this implied control. So I think it's irrelevant to say that capitalism is a mixture of anarchy and socialism. So what? That doesn't change the logic behind the ideology. My only point was that no single ideology is 100% perfect because humans are not 100% logical. We're a mixture of logic, instinct, emotion, and etc... so while the ideologies may very well be consistent, we are not. Therefore no ideology is or even should be implemented 100%. Don't get me wrong. I guess for academic's sake it's good to realize the control requirement for government and how ironic capitalism and socialism overlap each other, I just don't think it matters that much when discussing ideological preference. That's just me. Glad we agree... I think you need to re-read my statement on this, actually the paragraph following it. I don't know how you got this out of that. I will concede that rights are abstract after all, but they're not elusive - they're quite obvious for a civilized society to exist.