Sorry, so if you marry a dog..?? Then what?? How is it supposed to be a problem for me? I am not the one to split my networth 50/50 between myself and a dog. If you marry a dog, it may be your future, not mine.

I say go ahead, marry a crocodile. Or even better, take a crocodile and make him your pope.

I'll support your freedom to do so, because that is what America is all about.

That's the sad part. We used to be famous for protecting rights and freedoms.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas - 379k

For a moment I was amazed with your Arabic. But then, I recognized Wikipedia. If wikipedia says so, it must be, right?

Most who know me on this forum, would say that I am very harsh, and the kind they usually associate with Republicans.

However, I am not a republican, and on this particular issue, I think that an incredible injustice is being committed as long as gay do not have the same rights.

I agree with Lynnan, no one has to marry his own sex. I am not gay, but I do not see gay couples as a problem for me. I simply don't care, why should I?

But I do care that they are afforded the same rights, because by insuring their right, I insure mine against despotic government.

That being said, I think it is pretty stupid to ask permission from a government. To ask your government for a permission to marry is no smarter than to ask your maid for a permission to take the car out for a date.

Just do it anyway, it is your right, and let them work to ban it.

That sound like reading from Bush teleprompter, man.

What business we have in determination of Afghanistan should be ruled by an elected or unelected official? Who died and made us an all-knowing decider?

The truth is by announcing a war against terror, we wished to announce that we will attack anyone who doesn't define terror as we do. A war against the whole world, to bend them all to our thinking.

Beyond winnable or not, it is just unamerican to interfere in affairs of others in this way. This is what tyrants do, like Taliban, according to Bush.

As to Taliban not turning over Osama... why should they? Imagine someone blows up Afghani building, and they say it was Fanta, according to their "intelligence". Should US government now turn him over or be destroyed? Wtf?

You're speaking my mind, sir.

Yep. This is where we stepped away from what America is. We did that to announce to all that there is no more fair America, and that we now wish to be the biggest bully. That instead business with all and alliance with no one, we are now intend to ally with (of all people) Britons in pushing everybody around, interfering with everybody's affair.

I think we need to stop and return to our roots. Screw the world, it is their own business, ain't ours.

That's a pretty reasonable answer.


You hear this, man? (to OP).

"
You can walk softly where ever you want, when you have the very big stick.
It commands respect or fear.
Signifies that you are a major player in world politics. At least that's one of the perceptions.
A huge bargaining chip to negotiate with.
"

It doesn't sound like a promise of attack. It sounds like an assurance of not being attacked. Isn't that an absolute dream of free people, to live and not ever being attacked, being left alone, doing your own thing?

It was an art, and wasn't any business of school.

Well, we're not at war with either Afghanistan, Iraq or Pakistan. There was no declaration of war.

What we have now is an activity of certain high power figures, using nation's armed forces in their private agendas.

Unless, Fanta, UNLESS, you believe in the story that Bush has sold to Americans, about Talibal "Hating" freedom so much, they actually could not sit in the cave any longer, came out and started their long work on 911 project.

If you do, then terrorists are created as a byproduct of freedom, in underground cavities.

This was the cheesiest bogeyman excuse ever invented, and it was a Bushism written all over it, and yet, most do believe it.

Oops, sorry. Actually by the latest polls, only a minority believes that the magical 911 story did happen as Bush said it did.

But yeah, I doubt that even a most devoted evil follower, sits somewhere in the desert with a sole idea of killing someone who does not bother him at all.

May-be it was the WTO, that was an evil character in that story?

Farcry (The Original, of course, not the "2" travesty).

"Soldier of Fortune" on ZX Spectrum. 1980. Very addictive.

Really?

How tough is it to see that if a country as powerful and able in war as United States, can not see itself existing without a nuclear weapon, than any small country, particularly neighboring those constantly invaded, or that is directly receiving threats to be invaded itself, definitely needs them?

If was a small possibility that a small country could afford a peaceful attitude, then a big country definitely could.

With this in mind, why don't you tell us why any empire-sized country need a nuclear weapon?

I agree with Fanta on that!

Wiki: (even wikipedia knows about it? no way...)

Seigniorage can be seen as a form of tax levied on the holders of a currency and as such a redistribution of real resources to the issuer. The expansion of the money supply causes inflation in the long run. This means that the real wealth of people who hold cash or deposits decreases and the wealth of the issuer of the money increases. This is a redistribution of wealth from the people to the issuers of newly-created money (the central bank) very similar to a tax.

This is one reason offered in support of the free banking, a gold standard, or at a minimum the reduction of political control over central banks. The latter could then take as their primary objective ensuring a stable value of currency by controlling monetary expansion and thus limiting inflation. Independence from government is required to reach this aim - indeed, it is well known in economic literature that governments face a conflict of interest in this regard. In fact, "hard money" advocates argue that central banks have utterly failed to obtain the objective of a stable currency. Under the gold standard, for example, the price level in both England and the US remained relatively stable over literally hundreds of years, though with some protracted periods of deflation[citation needed]. Since the US Federal Reserve was formed in 1913, however, the US dollar has fallen to barely a twentieth of its former value through the consistently inflationary policies of the bank. Economists counter that deflation is hard to control once it sets in and its effects are much more damaging than modest, consistent inflation.

Ultimately, banks or governments relying heavily on seigniorage and fractional reserve sources of revenue will find it counterproductive. Rational expectations of inflation take into account a bank's seigniorage strategy, leading to economy-damaging hyperinflation. Instead of accruing seigniorage from fiat money and credit most governments opt to raise revenue primarily through taxation and other means.

I don't know about that site...

Is it the people that are so dumb, that no one uses the word "Seigniorage", describing the process by which they are all currently being impoverished,

Or is it the ranking system that is way too dumb, because it says that the word "Seigniorage" currently is not being used?

Beats me, but may this be actually telling about Britons? Could we really TRUST the site that the word isn't used, or may the search engine exclude some words, banned to be known?

Yes, but don't forget that while we already have a system that allows us to remain free and unharmed, we always stir it (vote) in the direction that will definitely harm us.

It is the stupidity of the masses, that allows big business or any other "power" entity to actually have any power. We vote to give it to them, because we are too stupid to realize that the proposed "solution" is a catch.

Even FDR, couldn't confiscate gold, if people simply rejected his actions loudly and publicly. But they did not. They were believing that he knows best.

But, anyone who doesn't trust his own judgment, deserves to be judged, right? Thus we always end up being duped and used, even though we have the keys to our freedom in our hands at all times.

"The way to a rich man's pocket lies through an ambush" - an old proverb says. But then it continues: - "And a way to a dumb man's pocket lies through a beautiful lie".

Damned, I know what is my problem now... I read too much, and all the politically incorrect stuff!

Too bad Obama wasn't a savior when I was a child, roaming around, and free to read anything I wanted.