Canada will be pissed.... Maybe, but I didn't think it ever considered itself a great power. Great in agriculture, sure, but not exactly an Israel or even a France on the military map.
I would suggest what made America great was plenty of people, lots of land, great piles of resources and no similarly developed nation on its landmass from its birth. It's easy to be a great power when you share no borders with any others. Since the 19th century it's just been consolidation of that great natural advantage.
I think you've got the wrong idea, mate. John is a neighbor -- he lives across the street from me. And, I don't think we would ever, ever date. Friends, yes... but beyond that, no. Never say never, especially at college. What are friends for if not to help you through the quiet times? If you find him at all attractive then I wouldn't be so quick to scratch him off the list. At least see how he responds when you break up with your next partn
I blame the school system that claims to have educated danielost. Oh come now, surely that too was entirely Al Qaeda's fault?
You should be careful with john. Housemate relationships can end really badly. If you do decide to date, kick him out and get someone new in. He can always move back in a few months later if you get on well.
As someone who comes from a country where a government job is not a job for life I can see why you might find it scary. But really all you need to do is shake up the public servants. No greater blow was struck for public service efficiency in my country than when it was gutted by the Howard government (one of the few acts it's performed that I wholeheartedly agreed with). Granted, they probably cut a bit too much off, but over the last ten years the quality of both federal gov employe
I'll probably read the ending before I read the beginning. I hate mysteries. It's the questions that interest me, not the answers.
Ports are borders. Do you think that Ireland is any less safe because it has no land borders? It was that thinking that led to 9-11 (the oceans will protect us). Apparently I wasn't being clear enough. Border control is a state issue, unless of course ports are under city jurisdiction. From what you said ports are already under federal jurisdiction. Airports have always been federally controlled (customs is national, not local). <br
OK yer CRAZY! Cheers! Lemme tell yer sumpin bout California, shut down Lalaland {los Angeles} and Sanfran FREAKO {san francisco} and you have a republican state. Sanfranfreako has been disrespecting the rest of the country for decades, it's time for them to pay some dues now. Maybe, but since Gid drew me into highly implausible what-if scenarios, San Francisco and Los Angeles are big and rich enough to
If we're going to PROTECT our borders, we should first SECURE our borders. What SF and similar cities are proposing is to refuse to cooperate in defending our borders. Why should they receive funds when they're working AGAINST our efforts? Most cities have no land borders with foreign states. They have ports, sure, but I imagine it would be more effective to simply take the ports off them and seal off San Fran and other cities' foreigner-loving ways thr
So let me get this straight. There's apparently a war on terror going on yet the US government is refusing to protect some of its cities just because they're being recalcitrant on a domestic issue. Call me crazy, but doesn't that just suggest the Republicans don't take the war on terror seriously?
This is an interesting topic. I remember Brad saying not too long back that Christians, unlike Muslims, would put their country first. I guess he was wrong if you guys are anything to go by.
Let me get this straight. They filmed the graduation ceremony. They filmed the freakin' graduation ceremony. Those bombers aren't going anywhere, least of all into western countries. how the hell do you get through customs when your face is readily identifiable as coming from a suicide bomber training camp? Someone is being taken for a ride I reckon.
That's pretty absurd. The Egyptian universities have got some rather interesting characters for high-ups... At least the government put a stop to it!
I'm all for keeping the government out of our bedrooms. By the same token, I'd like to see homosexuals keep their bedroom habits confined to their bedrooms and quit making such a goddamned spectacle of themselves. I can't say I have a huge amount of contact with the gay movement, but I've never heard them argue for a Dildo Bill. Does the US gay movement really focus on the legislation of sexual position over the legislation of equality? From
From what I understand some (of course not all, but the part that I personally find most convincing) of the argument for gay marriage lies in the injustice of death for many long-term gay couples. If a gay man or woman is hospitalised their partner doesn't necessarily count as family; they may never be able to say goodbye. They may not be able to make decisions on life support or organ transplant. They may not be able to contribute to decisions on nursing homes or indeed any form of t
Just like Baker....you're semantics are virtually flawless. How proud you must be. Congratulations. I'm merely trying to point out that when we're talking MAINSTREAM we have to consider the actions of the MAJORITY . Incidents that only happen in a FEW places are NOT MAINSTREAM . Do you understand now or do you still there's only semantic differences (which coincidentally is a branch of linguistics entirely concerned
And all that was only for a few political cartoons. They did much the same stuff for Newsweek's erroneous reporting of the toilet-bowl "flushings" of Muslim prayer books, by US guards, at Gitmo. If that sounds like simply "shouting a bit and bitterly complaining", I think maybe Australia is a little more exciting than I've heard. First of all - so that's the incident you meant! I couldn't pick it from your initial description. More topi
Prove it. You're playing the rational head here. It doesn't matter if someone points out 100 people who shifted to heterosexuality after being "gay" during their lives, it is just assumed they weren't gay to begin with. You'd think someone as smart as you would see the twisted logic in this stance. It's really not difficult to test this and I don't know why it hasn't been tested. You can find out if a man could get off on sex with a man just by sub
SanChonino beat me to it. Given the topic, and the fact I've never had it at all, I was just wondering... up to where? Normally you point to their neck when you say that, but I'm thinking that isn't physically possible... well, wait... That's hilarious dude. Gid's had it balls-deep with the gay rights movement, and he can't take it any more! I'll be sniggering all day. On topic... If the reason marriage exists is breeding, the
OH MY GOSH...now this is the most UNNATURAL thing I've ever heard of. Really? A woman who regularly sleeps with more than one man is the most unnatural thing you've ever heard of? You really need to get out more. Many female 'friends' of professional football teams engage in this behaviour.
I will ask you this straight up, Sean: do you support the same rights for polygamy or polyandry? Assuming that ONLY consenting adults are part of the relationship? IF not, Why not? I don't know about polyandry (is that something I'd regret googling?) but I don't have a problem with polygamy so long as none of the participants are forced. I think religious polygamy* (where the husband is allowed to have multiple wives but women lack the same right) as wr
I wounder how long there would be a terrorism problem if they would just turn all that rage on the Fundie radicals? Considering the mainstream Islamic response to the cartoons and the qur'an flushings (I've no idea what they were but whatever) was to shout a bit and complain bitterly to anyone who'd listen I'm not sure that would be an effective tactic against terrorism. It sure hasn't worked for Bush, and he even backed up his complaints with a
Not lied to, but misled, sure. I don't think there are any functioning democracies in the world, at least none in the way you seem to understand them.
Then maybe you can explain to me the purpose of allowing people to have a say in something when one of the choices is already considered unconstitutional before it was even voted for and once it was voted for, we have someone like judge overturn it? It reminds me of the many times my mother asked me if I wanted to go to the store with her and when I said no she would say "well you are going anyways". So why did you ask? You don't live in a democracy. Yo
JoeUser Forums