IamChrisMcCall wrote: Don't you have a war to not lose? It took you a day to come up with that little pissant comeback? What a wussy. Maybe you better go play on the Disney.com with your peer group. Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

The general economy needs support. That's not comparable to martyr incentives. 2) That may be, it's also possible that just because I can't find it doesn't mean it ain't so. But I'll concede on this. 3) With the help of France, Germany and whoever else was involved, they raped the hell out of the Oil for Food program. They might as well have not been under sanctions at all. The fact is he was still looking to expand weapons. 4) Yeah, they were also looking for Korean chicks. But first and foremost they were looking for land. Not an occupation, a take over. They conquered for the purpose of taking more land as the Empires own. Which they had had their eye on for quite some time condsidering the population on their tiny island. Unlike a good portion of Europe, the US has never been empirial and likely never will be. WWII Japan & the current US are apples and oranges. Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.

IamChrisMcCall wrote: So you support universal health care, as long as it's not for you. I just want to be clear on this. Let me make it perfectly clear for you, since stating it three times apparently is not quite enough: I completely and 100% support "universal" health care or any other completely socialist or communistic program as long as those programs are contained within a small and local government, as long as those programs do not contradict the inalienable rights defined in the US and state constitutions, as long as they are derived through the democratic process according to that local community and as long as that community is not the one I live in. Clear enough? I suspect not. If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter

IamChrisMcCall wrote: Google those terms. Neither of those terms equate to anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is essentially libertarianism taken to its extremes wherein the legal constructs in ecomonic systems are deemed unnecessary and government is removed altogether. Classical liberalism yielded the US Constitution which (obviously) defined a government. In general, libertarians don't oppose the existence of government (as anarcho-capitalists do), but do prefer its strict limitations. IamChrisMcCall wrote: Then this article comes out to say it is doing just fine. Laughable. Where does he say that? It seems that he pointed out that their progress is superior in the absence of government than with it...Not that they're doing "just fine". The former relates to a rate of change and the latter to the current state.

Joergen Sigvardsson wrote: But yeah, it was a bit childish. Oh man my credibility is ruined! :)

led mike wrote: when you decided to go off topic thinking I wouldn't notice *rolleyes* Now you're pulling a Red speaking for another. Welcome to the led logic prism. The whole issue of legality centers around benefits received from being married. Which, the leading benefit is a tax break. Twist it some more. I can see that you and Red are indeed two sides of the same coin. led mike wrote: You have still not provided any evidence that shows any original federal or natural law that prohibited same sex marriage. Unless you do your claim that they never had the right is unfounded. That logic is inescapable. If the evidence exists then it exists and that would be inescapable. So you either have it or you don't, it has nothing to do with taxes. The tax argument might be a good one in favor of an amendment that limits marriage to opposite sexes but has no bearing on whether or not they ever were limited by federal or natural law. And you still haven't shown that they ever had that right UNDER LAW. And you're avoiding the logic by putting a burden of proof on my statement. I'd have to display all laws, and then show that that law never existed. Quite the task really and isn't even possible with the amount of time I have. You only have to cite one law that says they had the right under law. My position is that a law never existed which gave the right. You contend the right is invisible with the others as, if it isn't stated then its a given. Yet, there isn't any recorded same sex marriages. It wasn't even socially acceptable. I'd accept the gains you've received and quit whining about splitting these hairs of legality. Like I said, you're too close to the problem. Hopefully the day comes when your marriage is recognized as equal and valid. This statement was never false.

I don't see that distinction. I think that you do, as you side with one of them. I don't, so its glaringly clear to me that both sides are pretty equally up to their necks in crap. Typical for primates. This statement was never false.