a normative is required to have an end goal, and you simply saying it isnt doesnt prove anything or "own" me. it simply makes you looks like an idiot.  for something to be a goal, there must be a reason why it is a goal.

"Which I never said"

you said "government should only make decisions and policy based on evidence, and never on religion or vague ideals." and then said "The direction, I implied, was about serving the public."

you just contradicted yourself; you even admit your ideal you want the government to serve is vague, which you stated a government shouldnt do.

ah, chris, a classic nerd movie.

"no my point was that the def. changes per context and who is actually saying it"

well, that was a pretty irelevant point to make then. its pretty common sense, and no one was ignoring that common sense.

"Flint why should we not disbelieve your sources?"

its not a matter of disbelieving his sources; its a matter of discarding them in debate, just because you arent familiar with them. in debate, dont discredit them just so you can win the debate.

"You are a religious fundamentalist, and a disbeliever of evolution and man made global warming. You disbelive most science just the way you see fit wink"

where do you get that he's a religious fundamentalist? i've been in these forums a long time, and never seen any indication that he was. and there are many reputable people that dont beleive in global warming, and he has prevented plenty of sources, where there is at least reasonable doubt of it.

> Theodora wrote:

> Is it wrong that when I read the title, I thought this thread was about white people

i thought the same thing it just shows the anti-white bias in today's society, that a word that a word for white people is also a word for certain criminals.

> EliteInternetWarrior wrote:

> >

About the cars - it will never take off just simply by appealing to the more noble sentiments of Americans to "save the environment". Low price, handling, reliability, acceleration, speed. Guess what traits this electric car by GM will have? None.

yep, its gonna be a shit car and its gonna buy like shit, and then the politicians will blame the citizens for not buying a crap, overpriced piece of shit, and then 10 or 15 years down the line, when the technology is actually ready, we'll have no problem buying electric cars. also, i think the main reason why the volt cant be priced competitively is not only does it have an electric motor and batteries, it also has a gas tank and a generator, so that if the batteries are low, you can burn gas to get a longer range. now, Ford is focusing on electric cars without the gas generator, but their ranges are probably gonna be too short, that they probably wont be feasible.

well, obviously you can disallow them, because it has happened. and any rules, is discrimination.

yes, political decisions shouldnt be motivated by religion, that means no laws against, things that cant be proven wrong, like murder....

the guy in the pic doesnt look sincerely shocked, looks like he's faking it.

"Never said it was easy. But you can't expect your airfields to be 100% secure. Besides, how does one occupy and take over vital resource nodes or enemy military facilities with just airplanes."

well, nowadays, a western nation attacking another inorder to claim part or all of its land isnt feasible, there would be too much backlash. basically, the millitary has become a spanking paddle, and thats it. Saddum didnt let inspectors in, so Clinton spanked him with the millitary, he did it again with Bush, and Bush spanked him. On offense, you dont need to occupy their land to spank them. Ground forces is mainly used to minimize collateral damage, and then theres special forces that help planes hit targets.