FSPilot

You're making it sound like the popular votes don't count for anything. It's very rare when the electoral college differs from the popular vote. IIRC it's only happened twice.

And this is where we get bogged down in semantics. How do you define agreed and disagreed? The ones who said they didn't like it, the ones who said they supported the ones who said that? We could go on and on for ages trying to count these things, but it doesn't matter. He made his point that we unified with other countries and got rid of Hussein. There's no point in nitpicking whether he should of said "many" or not.

I don't recall teen pregnancies being a problem in the 1960s or 70s (maybe because I wasn't alive, but still). Then we agree. Oh the CDC you know how leftist and biased that organisation is! (two smileys, I'm officially j/k) Although the rates are going down, they're still too high. Around 1,000,000 girls get pregnant each year. Not women, girls. Girls who cant afford a baby and cant afford to skip school to take care of one.

ralph wiggum I never said you did. Condoms aren't stopping the flood of pregnancies and STDs. We need something more. Estimated 1 million teen pregnancies in the US. No I'm not condeming them, I'm saying it's a problem that needs fixing. And obviously it's not working. Your solution to the problem is more of the same? denoir And you're nitpicking the definiton of many and few. It's amazing how you can take semantics that completely alter the content of a sentence and compare it to semantics that don't. Go take another grammar class. Bush is trying to give a positive glow on who supported us and who didn't, not count votes on it. You're saying that it technically wasn't a majority so technically he shouldn't of said "many". So what? He made his point, it does't matter if he said "many" or "few" or "lots" or "little". Did I even remotely suggest that!? NO! I'm saying we need to do MORE work to keep STDs and teen pregnancies down.

Ralph BS, just because I argued back doesn't mean I started the argument. He was nitpicking semantics and I called him on it. denoir We've got essentially the same system here, except we have pregnant cheerleaders and 13 year old mothers. Don't tell me it's working. They're not taking care of themselves. Even though we're instructing them to, even though we give them free condoms, even though they have information on safe sex. It's not working.

Yes, semantics. You're nitpicking words that don't change the meaning of his statement, especially considering that it was relatively vague. Would it be better if he sat for you and defined what he meant by "objections" and "coalition"?

Look closely at his argument and you'll see that he started it.

ralph wiggum And here's the problem with today's society. Virginity is looked at as a weakness or social ineptitude. Am I to be looked down on because I don't bang every girl in sight? Today when STDs are epidemics and pregnancys are too, I'd say absitinence is a good thing. denoir Is AIDs a religions basis? Is teen pregnancy a religious basis? Contraceptives and information aren't working, if anything they're making it worse. We need something more.

This line: It was not a coalition of many (the term "many" only has a meaning when you measure it against the complete set, in this case 191 countries). And it was certainly not the objections of a few. He seems to have confused the terms "many" and "few". The truth (as opposed to a lie) would be: "There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of few nations, and submitting to the objections of many" Wow, you -really- hate Bush. Get over the semantics.

Yeah, thanks to Clinton RalphWiggum It's better than what we've got going on now. We've got free condoms being passed out in school and sex-ed teachers giving graphic tutorials of lap dances. We're practically encouraging it now!

You guys know how stupid this is getting right?

What about 34 of 191? Anyway, what exactly does the definiton of "majority" have to do with the definition of "internationalized"? He never said the majority of countries in the world supported the war. IIRC the majority of countries in the world didn't even support the first gulf war.

turms They could charge her with disturbing the peace or maybe lying to an officer. Those might put her in prison. The airline could sue her and the FAA could fine her, but neither of those would end up in a prison sentence. Â I don't know what they've charged her with though.

And don't get started on that she was a girl and didn't look like a terrorist. You can't look like you've got a grudge against Americans.

Uh, not really. Â When she's arrested she's taken before a judge who will set her bail and court date. Â If she pays bail she doesn't have to sit in jail until her court date, if she doesn't pay bail then she gets to sit in jail until her court date. Â Depending on how long a wait that is she might get to sit in a one-cell county jail or sent to a bigger one. If she's a very big "flight risk" (meaning that she'd leave the country and out of our jurisdiction before the trial starts) then the bail will be set higher or possibly no bail will be set, so she would have to wait in US custody. At the beginning of the trial (well, not really, but before it happens) she's asked what she wants to plead: guilty or not guilty. Â If she pleads guilty there will only be a sentencing (usually lighter because she admitted it, she might not even be prosecuted). Â If she pleads not guilty then they go to court and have a trial. You can't just pay for a speedy trial, a lot of different circumstances determine that.

The girl did something stupid and needs to be made an example of. Because obviously everybody still doesn't know not to joke about bombs in airports.

You're right, it's not smart to put all your confidence in one candidate so early. But on the other hand the democrats don't have any Bill Clintons running this term, or even Al Gores. These are bottom-of-the-barrel candidates.

I don't agree with a lot of what's being said by people protesting President Bush honoring a dead man. They're more interested in shouting at the president than honoring Dr. King.

Are they letting people volunteer?

That's one magic punch.

You really should move back in time to the USSR, I think you'd be happier there. Here in America we welcome religion though. Anyway, looks to me like Bush is going to win. The democrats haven't been able to pull out a strong candidate this time around and all they've really got to run on is "Hey, don't you guys hate Bush too?"

Only this time it'll hopefully be one of those races where you and your friend (Russia in this situation) have your legs tied in a potato-sack and you have to hobble your way to the moon. I don't see why everyone's complaining about money here. IIRC NASA isn't getting any new money for this project. They're being tasked to reallocate 11 billion or some dollars to do this. It'll probably take more money than that, but even then I don't see NASA getting a check for this.

I sure hope you're talking about an airsoft AR. If not you're probably the reason lots of guns are illegal in your country.

It's been a while since I've played airsoft or any sport like that. I hear that my ROTC det. goes paintballing every once in a while so I guess that will have to do.

I've played paintball a few times before. You'll never catch me in a speedball scene though. No thanks to hiding behind giant colorful inflatable shapes, I'd rather use some realistic logs or rocks for cover Besides, everyone knows it's all about the airsoft.