Stuff
Mate you haven't been licking cane toads you have been licking trolls. The hallucinogens in Troll glands just make you nasty, go have a beer and simmer down.
There was no fabrication of WMD evidence, if there had been President Bush would have had a much easier time in office. Instead there was a break down of the Intelligence community in the United States and worldwide.
Still it smacks of gross incompetence and a willingness to reward those that tell you what you want to hear and ignore those who were saying there is nothing. Everything from 9/11 onwards was criminal negligence combined with half-assed fly by the seat of your pants policy. It betrayed the brave men and women of the allies that fought and died, and it betrayed the innocent civilians that lost their lives as well. Bush and his cronies drove the US deep into debt, lowered its standing in the world and made some very rich people even richer at the expense of the average US citizen. "Worst President Ever" should be on his epitaph.
"Worst President Ever" should be on his epitaph.
As bad as he was, there were most certainly worse.
"Worst President Ever" should be on his epitaph.As bad as he was, there were most certainly worse.
But, this kind of debate almost certainly does lead to partisan bickering.
But, this kind of debate almost certainly does lead to partisan bickering."Worst President Ever" should be on his epitaph.As bad as he was, there were most certainly worse.
Hence the lack of examples ;)
EDIT: I found out yesterday that "partisan" is also a name for a weapon. I will now be intentionally imagining a bunch of pronged spears arguing in British accents whenever someone uses the phrase "partisan bickering".
But, this kind of debate almost certainly does lead to partisan bickering."Worst President Ever" should be on his epitaph.As bad as he was, there were most certainly worse.Hence the lack of examples ;)
EDIT: I found out yesterday that "partisan" is also a name for a weapon. I will now be intentionally imagining a bunch of pronged spears arguing in British accents whenever someone uses the phrase "partisan bickering".
Excellent. Anything to increase the level of Britishness on these boards. Top hole, old man. Carry on.
|
StuffMate you haven't been licking cane toads you have been licking trolls. The hallucinogens in Troll glands just make you nasty, go have a beer and simmer down.
Still it smacks of gross incompetence and a willingness to reward those that tell you what you want to hear and ignore those who were saying there is nothing.
Yeah Have a beer or two n us YD. You need it.
It doesn't smack of gross incompetence, it was gross incompetence.
Excellent. Anything to increase the level of Britishness on these boards. Top hole, old man. Carry on.But, this kind of debate almost certainly does lead to partisan bickering."Worst President Ever" should be on his epitaph.As bad as he was, there were most certainly worse.Hence the lack of examples ;)
EDIT: I found out yesterday that "partisan" is also a name for a weapon. I will now be intentionally imagining a bunch of pronged spears arguing in British accents whenever someone uses the phrase "partisan bickering".
Top Hole?
Top Hole?Excellent. Anything to increase the level of Britishness on these boards. Top hole, old man. Carry on.But, this kind of debate almost certainly does lead to partisan bickering."Worst President Ever" should be on his epitaph.As bad as he was, there were most certainly worse.Hence the lack of examples ;)
EDIT: I found out yesterday that "partisan" is also a name for a weapon. I will now be intentionally imagining a bunch of pronged spears arguing in British accents whenever someone uses the phrase "partisan bickering".
No idea of the etymology, old chap, but it means excellent or splendid. Very common in the old black and white war films that you Yanks still think we talk like. Carry on.
Bloody Limeys. :)
More to the point, the argument that "I didn't agree to the law, so I'm not bound by it," is a sophism. If that were true, groups like the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would not have to practice their religion by going underground because they would not be bound by anti-polygamy laws.
Authors Note: I do not by any means advocate or support polygamy. It was just an example that popped in my mind because the news was reporting on the sentencing of one of Elizabeth Smart's kidnappers.
I don't have an issue with consenting adult poly amorous unions, but having 13 YO wives is just beyond creepy to me.
One thing I have noticed in this thread is that people have consistently brought up preemptive war, which at this point I have only seen mentioned by the people opposing it and North Korea. Let us put things in perspective here. North Korea engaged in an act of war by sinking the vessel of another nation in that nation's territorial waters. Although North Korea disputes that fact, the international community is pretty much in agreement that this is what happened. After all the North Koreans only recently owned up to kidnapping citizens of other nations.
So what has been the international communities response to this provocative action? They have called for sanctions on North Korea, which is the best route to go in this situation. Other than Kim Jun-Il, the North Korean government has been seemingly moving to a more moderate stance, including opening reunification talks with South Korea. Sanctions could very well speed up the process of replacing Kim with someone who is more open to reforms and reunification.
North Korea is a unique case in that because a large percentage of it's population still lives a subsistence agricultural existence largely without modern technology, sanctions would mostly harm the people who we are trying to harm, the military and ruling elite, without too much disruption or harm to the people of the country.
However, we must ask ourselves two questions. The first is what do we do if North Korea's political-military establishment carries through with it's threats and launches a full scale military strike against South Korea, and possibly Japan and the United States. The medium range missiles that North Korea has been building have the range to reach Japan, and in theory could even reach Alaska. So I ask, if we are attacked first will you support the use of force in response to that attack?
The second question is more philosophical in nature. In the Deceleration of Independence, one of the founding...
You make a valid point that my objections to preemptive war don't speak precisely to this situation. South Korea has every right to defend itself. My objections to "entangling alliances" has much more direct bearing. I don't like the fact that the ROK's war is virtually automatically our war. From a purely ideological perspective I have real issues with our arrangements in Korea, NATO, and so forth. OTOH I think real good was achieved by our involvement with NATO and Korea. I have some real cognitive dissonance in my position that I really am not sure how to sort out. I tend to be far more ideological than pragmatic, but I find it hard to be an ideological purist on the "entangling alliance" issue with any intellectual honesty especially in light of the Cold War.
My hard line opposition to Preemptive war stands, and I think we need to seriously rethink our numerous foreign military commitments in light of our current fiscal crisis and the end of the Cold War.
In terms of supporting freedom and human rights around the globe, I think our first responsibility is to set a good example, have consistent policies, and build prosperity through trade.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
But, this kind of debate almost certainly does lead to partisan bickering."Worst President Ever" should be on his epitaph.As bad as he was, there were most certainly worse.Hence the lack of examples ;)
EDIT: I found out yesterday that "partisan" is also a name for a weapon. I will now be intentionally imagining a bunch of pronged spears arguing in British accents whenever someone uses the phrase "partisan bickering".
My favorite polearm, actually. They had stats for them back in Dragon.
I keep saying this time and again...north Korea = Radioactive waste disposal sight for the world. Problem solved.That would certainly give President Ahmadinejad more fuel against us.
RIIIIIGGGHHT. 'Cause President Bat-sh!t Crazy can't pull out a list of imagined offenses out of his backside whenever he's low on fuel...
Bloody Limeys. :)
At least they don't get scurvy.
They do prefer to be called whinging poms or bloody pommy bastards and then thrashed at every sport that they invented by Australians.
|
I don't have an issue with consenting adult poly amorous unions, but having 13 YO wives is just beyond creepy to me.More to the point, the argument that "I didn't agree to the law, so I'm not bound by it," is a sophism. If that were true, groups like the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would not have to practice their religion by going underground because they would not be bound by anti-polygamy laws.
Authors Note: I do not by any means advocate or support polygamy. It was just an example that popped in my mind because the news was reporting on the sentencing of one of Elizabeth Smart's kidnappers.
It's not so much the age as the non-consenting on the young brides part. Still English history is full of such things also. Seems however that most countries have moved past this type of thing - along with Witch burning. "Because it's our culture" should not be able to be used as defense against subjugating another.
S.
My favorite polearm, actually. They had stats for them back in Dragon.But, this kind of debate almost certainly does lead to partisan bickering."Worst President Ever" should be on his epitaph.As bad as he was, there were most certainly worse.Hence the lack of examples ;)
EDIT: I found out yesterday that "partisan" is also a name for a weapon. I will now be intentionally imagining a bunch of pronged spears arguing in British accents whenever someone uses the phrase "partisan bickering".
Dragon Compendium Vol. 1 was actually where I discovered it, digging through looking for a unique weapon for a boss villain ;) Didn't go with that particular one, but I'll probably drop it on some soldiers in place of your standard longspear one of these days.
It's not so much the age as the non-consenting on the young brides part. Still English history is full of such things also. Seems however that most countries have moved past this type of thing - along with Witch burning. "Because it's our culture" should not be able to be used as defense against subjugating another.
S.
Bill Wyman and Jerry Lee Lewis.... I suppose that they were consenting although I don't think that it justifies it.
|
|
StuffMate you haven't been licking cane toads you have been licking trolls. The hallucinogens in Troll glands just make you nasty, go have a beer and simmer down.
Still it smacks of gross incompetence and a willingness to reward those that tell you what you want to hear and ignore those who were saying there is nothing. Everything from 9/11 onwards was criminal negligence combined with half-assed fly by the seat of your pants policy. It betrayed the brave men and women of the allies that fought and died, and it betrayed the innocent civilians that lost their lives as well. Bush and his cronies drove the US deep into debt, lowered its standing in the world and made some very rich people even richer at the expense of the average US citizen. "Worst President Ever" should be on his epitaph.
There was no fabrication of WMD evidence, if there had been President Bush would have had a much easier time in office. Instead there was a break down of the Intelligence community in the United States and worldwide.
I would have thought 'The President you wouldnt swerve to hit because the paint is worth more' would have been more appropriate.
Gross Criminal Negligence- That is when They poison the well of the Presidency making it so unpalatable and toxic that the people decide to do away with the roll.
Bill Wyman and Jerry Lee Lewis.... I suppose that they were consenting although I don't think that it justifies it.
It's not so much the age as the non-consenting on the young brides part. Still English history is full of such things also. Seems however that most countries have moved past this type of thing - along with Witch burning. "Because it's our culture" should not be able to be used as defense against subjugating another.
S.
uugh....Why does this remind me a new line I heard on CNN about Woody Allen defending Roman Polanski.
|
|
uugh....Why does this remind me a new line I heard on CNN about Woody Allen defending Roman Polanski.Bill Wyman and Jerry Lee Lewis.... I suppose that they were consenting although I don't think that it justifies it.
It's not so much the age as the non-consenting on the young brides part. Still English history is full of such things also. Seems however that most countries have moved past this type of thing - along with Witch burning. "Because it's our culture" should not be able to be used as defense against subjugating another.
S.
Ewww!
Ewww!uugh....Why does this remind me a new line I heard on CNN about Woody Allen defending Roman Polanski.Bill Wyman and Jerry Lee Lewis.... I suppose that they were consenting although I don't think that it justifies it.
It's not so much the age as the non-consenting on the young brides part. Still English history is full of such things also. Seems however that most countries have moved past this type of thing - along with Witch burning. "Because it's our culture" should not be able to be used as defense against subjugating another.
S.
It's a good thing you are immune to nausea right?
|
|
Bill Wyman and Jerry Lee Lewis.... I suppose that they were consenting although I don't think that it justifies it.
It's not so much the age as the non-consenting on the young brides part. Still English history is full of such things also. Seems however that most countries have moved past this type of thing - along with Witch burning. "Because it's our culture" should not be able to be used as defense against subjugating another.
S.
Tricky situation. Perhaps the young ladies in question were fully aware of what was happening and made a consciousness choice? We will never know, and as it's statutory rape if they did or didn't really doesn't matter - the law says it's not allowed. Sorry Romeo and Juliet. At what age is someone able to make an informed decision? At what age is marriage seen to be ok? What age gap is ok? Other than legal guidelines which then influence our "moral" stances what do we have to go on?
Personally I think those individuals are evil predators that need locked in small boxes and dumped in the North Sea. But that's just my opinion.
My point was that I would rather a young girl marry because of love than marry because of being forced too.
S.
Bill Wyman and Jerry Lee Lewis.... I suppose that they were consenting although I don't think that it justifies it.
It's not so much the age as the non-consenting on the young brides part. Still English history is full of such things also. Seems however that most countries have moved past this type of thing - along with Witch burning. "Because it's our culture" should not be able to be used as defense against subjugating another.
S.
Tricky situation. Perhaps the young ladies in question were fully aware of what was happening and made a consciousness choice? We will never know, and as it's statutory rape if they did or didn't really doesn't matter - the law says it's not allowed. Sorry Romeo and Juliet. At what age is someone able to make an informed decision? At what age is marriage seen to be ok? What age gap is ok? Other than legal guidelines which then influence our "moral" stances what do we have to go on?
Personally I think those individuals are evil predators that need locked in small boxes and dumped in the North Sea. But that's just my opinion.
My point was that I would rather a young girl marry because of love than marry because of being forced too.
S.
I kind of feel bad for derailing the thread, but at least I'm not talking about pole arms. ;)
|
|
I kind of feel bad for derailing the thread, but at least I'm not talking about pole arms. ;)
All part and parcel of the NK thing. What choices do the people of NK have with their lives? As people have already mentioned it's the poor b-stards that just want to live without missing meals and having health care that end up getting put into a worse state (during the fighting and for a while after) by armed intervention. Iraq is a frik'n mess from my external observer point of view. Perhaps armed intervention followed by SK taking control? I think tensions would run a little high if the "West" made it's presence high profile so close to China. And if we annoy China where on earth will we get our LED TV's from?
S.
I kind of feel bad for derailing the thread, but at least I'm not talking about pole arms. ;)
All part and parcel of the NK thing. What choices do the people of NK have with their lives? As people have already mentioned it's the poor b-stards that just want to live without missing meals and having health care that end up getting put into a worse state (during the fighting and for a while after) by armed intervention. Iraq is a frik'n mess from my external observer point of view. Perhaps armed intervention followed by SK taking control? I think tensions would run a little high if the "West" made it's presence high profile so close to China. And if we annoy China where on earth will we get our LED TV's from?
S.
I suppose it would not go well if we offended our new Chinese overlords. ;)
|
|
My favorite polearm, actually. They had stats for them back in Dragon.But, this kind of debate almost certainly does lead to partisan bickering."Worst President Ever" should be on his epitaph.As bad as he was, there were most certainly worse.Hence the lack of examples ;)
EDIT: I found out yesterday that "partisan" is also a name for a weapon. I will now be intentionally imagining a bunch of pronged spears arguing in British accents whenever someone uses the phrase "partisan bickering".
They had stats for them in the core rules in 1e.
|
No idea of the etymology, old chap, but it means excellent or splendid. Very common in the old black and white war films that you Yanks still think we talk like. Carry on.Top Hole?Excellent. Anything to increase the level of Britishness on these boards. Top hole, old man. Carry on.But, this kind of debate almost certainly does lead to partisan bickering."Worst President Ever" should be on his epitaph.As bad as he was, there were most certainly worse.Hence the lack of examples ;)
EDIT: I found out yesterday that "partisan" is also a name for a weapon. I will now be intentionally imagining a bunch of pronged spears arguing in British accents whenever someone uses the phrase "partisan bickering".
Apparently, the Brits are...confused XD
No idea of the etymology, old chap, but it means excellent or splendid. Very common in the old black and white war films that you Yanks still think we talk like. Carry on.Top Hole?Excellent. Anything to increase the level of Britishness on these boards. Top hole, old man. Carry on.But, this kind of debate almost certainly does lead to partisan bickering."Worst President Ever" should be on his epitaph.As bad as he was, there were most certainly worse.Hence the lack of examples ;)
EDIT: I found out yesterday that "partisan" is also a name for a weapon. I will now be intentionally imagining a bunch of pronged spears arguing in British accents whenever someone uses the phrase "partisan bickering".
No, nowadays, you add an "isn't it" to every other statement so nobody knows if you're saying something or asking a question.
|
|
No, nowadays, you add an "isn't it" to every other statement so nobody knows if you're saying something or asking a question.No idea of the etymology, old chap, but it means excellent or splendid. Very common in the old black and white war films that you Yanks still think we talk like. Carry on.Top Hole?Excellent. Anything to increase the level of Britishness on these boards. Top hole, old man. Carry on.But, this kind of debate almost certainly does lead to partisan bickering."Worst President Ever" should be on his epitaph.As bad as he was, there were most certainly worse.Hence the lack of examples ;)
EDIT: I found out yesterday that "partisan" is also a name for a weapon. I will now be intentionally imagining a bunch of pronged spears arguing in British accents whenever someone uses the phrase "partisan bickering".
North Korea is crazy-dangerous, isn't it?
|
|
U.S. Implicates North Korean Leader in Attack
BT I have to ask you:
Does it really matter?
You disagree with most systems of government, I get that. But what is complaining about it on messageboards going to do? The world governments don't actually care about any one person's opinion, they only care about staying in power. Especially now, in America, where corporations are now considered people.
How are you going to change that? You can't. It doesn't make it right that there are so many assbackwards things that every government does, but it does make railing against the system rather futile.
Just wanting to know.
North Korea is crazy-dangerous, isn't it?No, nowadays, you add an "isn't it" to every other statement so nobody knows if you're saying something or asking a question.No idea of the etymology, old chap, but it means excellent or splendid. Very common in the old black and white war films that you Yanks still think we talk like. Carry on.Top Hole?Excellent. Anything to increase the level of Britishness on these boards. Top hole, old man. Carry on.But, this kind of debate almost certainly does lead to partisan bickering."Worst President Ever" should be on his epitaph.As bad as he was, there were most certainly worse.Hence the lack of examples ;)
EDIT: I found out yesterday that "partisan" is also a name for a weapon. I will now be intentionally imagining a bunch of pronged spears arguing in British accents whenever someone uses the phrase "partisan bickering".
But yet it sounds more like
"North Korea is crazy-dangerous now, issin tit."
|
|
North Korea is crazy-dangerous, isn't it?No, nowadays, you add an "isn't it" to every other statement so nobody knows if you're saying something or asking a question.No idea of the etymology, old chap, but it means excellent or splendid. Very common in the old black and white war films that you Yanks still think we talk like. Carry on.Top Hole?Excellent. Anything to increase the level of Britishness on these boards. Top hole, old man. Carry on.But, this kind of debate almost certainly does lead to partisan bickering."Worst President Ever" should be on his epitaph.As bad as he was, there were most certainly worse.Hence the lack of examples ;)
EDIT: I found out yesterday that "partisan" is also a name for a weapon. I will now be intentionally imagining a bunch of pronged spears arguing in British accents whenever someone uses the phrase "partisan bickering".
But yet it sounds more like
"North Korea is crazy-dangerous now, issin tit."
I kinda am.
U.S. Implicates North Korean Leader in AttackBT I have to ask you:
Does it really matter?
You disagree with most systems of government, I get that. But what is complaining about it on messageboards going to do? The world governments don't actually care about any one person's opinion, they only care about staying in power. Especially now, in America, where corporations are now considered people.
How are you going to change that? You can't. It doesn't make it right that there are so many assbackwards things that every government does, but it does make railing against the system rather futile.
Just wanting to know.
It may be entirely futile to stand against tyranny and oppression. It may not.
It may be foolish or naive, but I still believe ideas matter. I still believe reason is better than than force for most things too. I'm not going to convince all of my fellow Republicans in the state or even my county that maybe the "party of smaller government" shouldn't legislate adults sex lives, drug choices or what ever else adults want to do with their own bodies, but maybe I'll influence a few. I doubt I will convince many many progressives that the government is more problem than solution, but at least I made a good faith effort. I can only live the best I can with what time I have left like any one else. We are powerless in many situations and all too often our best simply isn't good enough. It's one of the reasons why I detest the platitude "You can anything you set your mind to if you work hard enough!". We will work hard at lots of things and fail utterly, but what's left to us if we are so afraid of failure that we won't try the difficult things because we might fail. I don't think that life would be worth living for me. I may give up on the political process at some point. It's tedious and discouraging, but if I give up on my party in effect I surrender it to those I disagree with. Likewise if I quit voting I abandon the process to people I fundamentally disagree with.
I like to hope the exchange of well reasoned ideas can mean more than propaganda and ignorance. The good debates help me refine my own positions and sort through my contradictions and mental sloppiness, and hopefully help people to challenge their own assumptions, see hazards coming, and oppose them. I have no grand plan to change the world. I'd prefer to be left alone and look after me and mine, but that's all but impossible these days.
Depending on how long I live I'd let to tell my grand kids that I honestly did my part to keep the nation from going down the crapper before it falls on them to pick up the pieces.
That's probably more than you wanted to know.
Tricky situation. Perhaps the young ladies in question were fully aware of what was happening and made a consciousness choice? We will never know, and as it's statutory rape if they did or didn't really doesn't matter - the law says it's not allowed. Sorry Romeo and Juliet. At what age is someone able to make an informed decision? At what age is marriage seen to be ok? What age gap is ok? Other than legal guidelines which then influence our "moral" stances what do we have to go on?
Puberty is nature's blueprint for sexual activity. After it, the entity in question is physically capable of sexual activity.
However, in our society, we don't let children drive as soon as they can reach the pedals, drink alcohol as soon as they can lift the glass, or own firearms as soon as they can pull the trigger. For these exact same reasons, restrictions on sexual activity are probably a good thing.
What do you do if you catch some teens trying to go at it? What would you do if you caught them driving without a license, or with a bottle of booze, or with a loaded handgun? Hopefully, stop them from acting stupid, even over their protests about the same.
What do you do if you catch an adult trying to go at it with a teen? What would you do if you caught an adult giving access to a car, booze, or handguns to a young teen? Hopefully ensure that adult doesn't have further access to teens.
We can argue if two 14-year olds playing with a loaded gun made a conscious decision to do so. It won't change the fact that it's still stupid and something they are better off not doing.
|
Always great to see the discussion of a valid geo-poitical issue still brings out the anti-american members of the board... I wonder how many of them would be speaking another language now if it hadn't been for the good old US of A... That said (Flame On)
The Empire cannot take criticism now? How dare the rest of the world have an opinion? The actions of the Empire impacts on the other 6 billion people on the planet, but they should all roll over and shut up?
That is a bit strong and I agree, the United States has defended the freedom of other nations in the past. It has also involved itself in some despicable acts as well. Proxy wars anyone?
However, while I am not advocating the idea that a world without the United States would be a utopia, as there is always a more powerful civilisation, but come on do not automatically see a discussion as World v. America. Why should a bit of criticism be seen as anti-American? That is almost the attitude of the regime in China!
However, while I am not advocating the idea that a world without the United States would be a utopia, as there is always a more powerful civilisation, but come on do not automatically see a discussion as World v. America. Why should a bit of criticism be seen as anti-American? That is almost the attitude of the regime in China!
Or the prior regime in the United States?
|
|
I'm not sure I can say the world would be a better place if we had followed a non intervention path for the past 6 decades. It might have been, or the cold war might still be raging.
Who is perfect? No one country gets everything right. In Australia, we are struggling with issues that just require common sense and political courage. Our treatment of detainees is appalling. Our treatment of our indigenous population is appalling.
The Founding Fathers tried to ignore the future problems of slavery and kind of left it to the future. The United States could have remained isolationist, but I think the world would have been worse off.
I am not sure if there would have been a Cold War, since the two powers - the USA and the USSR - were the only powers (from memory) that could have sustained that "conflict". Britain and France were exhausted.
The United States cannot afford a war with North Korea and Australia cannot afford a war in that region. From an Australian perspective, we would have to choose if China became involved in the conflict. We have strong ties with the USA, built over six decades, and we also have strengthening ties with China.
May be I should not be wading into a discussion on North Korea after a bottle of wine under my belt, but the alcohol is making me fearless!
Bloody Limeys. :)At least they don't get scurvy.
They do prefer to be called whinging poms or bloody pommy bastards and then thrashed at every sport that they invented by Australians.
We're also quite fond of 20/20 World Champions, old chap. I believe you'll find cricket is one of ours.
As is football (real football not that silly Aussie Rules stuff you invented to make yourselves feel better). Granted we're not that good, but compared to you convicts...
|
|
Always great to see the discussion of a valid geo-poitical issue still brings out the anti-american members of the board... I wonder how many of them would be speaking another language now if it hadn't been for the good old US of A... That said (Flame On)The Empire cannot take criticism now? How dare the rest of the world have an opinion? The actions of the Empire impacts on the other 6 billion people on the planet, but they should all roll over and shut up?
That is a bit strong and I agree, the United States has defended the freedom of other nations in the past. It has also involved itself in some despicable acts as well. Proxy wars anyone?
However, while I am not advocating the idea that a world without the United States would be a utopia, as there is always a more powerful civilisation, but come on do not automatically see a discussion as World v. America. Why should a bit of criticism be seen as anti-American? That is almost the attitude of the regime in China!
I truly disagree. Proxy wars are smart. Not nice, but smart. America has its problems, but no more than any other modern country.
As far as China is concerned, we have China in our pocket by being so greatly indebted to it. How awesome is that? We owe them SO MUCH that if America ceased to exist, China's economy would collapse.
People would find another country to scapegoat for their problems. Probably Britain. Or Australia.
|
|
I truly disagree. Proxy wars are smart. Not nice, but smart. America has its problems, but no more than any other modern country.
As far as China is concerned, we have China in our pocket by being so greatly indebted to it. How awesome is that? We owe them SO MUCH that if America ceased to exist, China's economy would collapse.
People would find another country to scapegoat for their problems. Probably Britain. Or Australia.
I was not assessing the merits of proxy wars, Jared old mate. I was saying they are not particularly good for the inhabitants of the country in which the war is being fought. Hence, despicable!
Again, America having its problems and all was not relevant. You are using that to justify a stance that America should not be criticised because, darn it, it's just like our global neighbour Australia. The Aussies have problems, we have problems, lets invade Iraq together.
So what. I mentioned the regime in China and its unwillingness to be criticised or pulled up for its internal policies. Who cares if China owns more Texan ranches than Buffalo Bill. (Sorry, I don't know any big landowners in Texas). If Americans can't stand commentary from the global community, its starts to sound like China.
True, there is always another candidate for scapegoat. It'd be amusing to see Australia fulfill that role! :D
Bloody Limeys. :)At least they don't get scurvy.
They do prefer to be called whinging poms or bloody pommy bastards and then thrashed at every sport that they invented by Australians.
We're also quite fond of 20/20 World Champions, old chap. I believe you'll find cricket is one of ours.
As is football (real football not that silly Aussie Rules stuff you invented to make yourselves feel better). Granted we're not that good, but compared to you convicts...
Check out who won the last soccer game between our two nations... and the Indians invented the 20 - 20 cricket concept.
|
|
Tricky situation. Perhaps the young ladies in question were fully aware of what was happening and made a consciousness choice? We will never know, and as it's statutory rape if they did or didn't really doesn't matter - the law says it's not allowed. Sorry Romeo and Juliet. At what age is someone able to make an informed decision? At what age is marriage seen to be ok? What age gap is ok? Other than legal guidelines which then influence our "moral" stances what do we have to go on?Puberty is nature's blueprint for sexual activity. After it, the entity in question is physically capable of sexual activity.
However, in our society, we don't let children drive as soon as they can reach the pedals, drink alcohol as soon as they can lift the glass, or own firearms as soon as they can pull the trigger. For these exact same reasons, restrictions on sexual activity are probably a good thing.
What do you do if you catch some teens trying to go at it? What would you do if you caught them driving without a license, or with a bottle of booze, or with a loaded handgun? Hopefully, stop them from acting stupid, even over their protests about the same.
What do you do if you catch an adult trying to go at it with a teen? What would you do if you caught an adult giving access to a car, booze, or handguns to a young teen? Hopefully ensure that adult doesn't have further access to teens.
We can argue if two 14-year olds playing with a loaded gun made a conscious decision to do so. It won't change the fact that it's still stupid and something they are better off not doing.
Somebody landed in the wrong thread I see. :)
Tricky situation. Perhaps the young ladies in question were fully aware of what was happening and made a consciousness choice? We will never know, and as it's statutory rape if they did or didn't really doesn't matter - the law says it's not allowed. Sorry Romeo and Juliet. At what age is someone able to make an informed decision? At what age is marriage seen to be ok? What age gap is ok? Other than legal guidelines which then influence our "moral" stances what do we have to go on?Puberty is nature's blueprint for sexual activity. After it, the entity in question is physically capable of sexual activity.
However, in our society, we don't let children drive as soon as they can reach the pedals, drink alcohol as soon as they can lift the glass, or own firearms as soon as they can pull the trigger. For these exact same reasons, restrictions on sexual activity are probably a good thing.
What do you do if you catch some teens trying to go at it? What would you do if you caught them driving without a license, or with a bottle of booze, or with a loaded handgun? Hopefully, stop them from acting stupid, even over their protests about the same.
What do you do if you catch an adult trying to go at it with a teen? What would you do if you caught an adult giving access to a car, booze, or handguns to a young teen? Hopefully ensure that adult doesn't have further access to teens.
We can argue if two 14-year olds playing with a loaded gun made a conscious decision to do so. It won't change the fact that it's still stupid and something they are better off not doing.
Meh. There are dozens of societies that are still around and quite viable that have had different things to say on these subjects, including our own not that many generations ago. Cultural and social mores change with the times.