That our system has been hijacked by the Military Industrial Complex which propels us into unpopular, unjustified, & covert military actions is a separate beast that must be slain. But that must be done from within, by the American people themselves, through our votes and our representatives.

Close the NY HQ? Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Being an independent, sovereign nation does not mean we cannot participate in treaties, trade agreements, etc.

lol @ being overtaken by the world superpowers.

We are the world superpower. And regardless. The reality is the same people own your little hobbiton that own ours: international bankers.

Our independence affords us resilience.

It's explained in my argument to you below.

Posting little back & forth responses which are not arguments for or against, but just pointless chatter still modify the debate scores for each side.

I'm just practicing bullshit equalization.

Enjoy.

It is an extra-constitutional entity which usurps the power of the people by taking away their representation and subjecting our foreign policy to the whims of the globalists.

It wouldn't be considered "just having fun" by eBay if someone bid on every auction, because it screws up the actual auction. This is no different.

If you just want to joke around and talk about current events & stuff, join a forum.

Some people consider crank phone calls fun, and I agree, to an extent. They can be funny and amusing and a nice break from bill collectors, nosy relatives, and needy friends. However, if you constantly call the same person 10 times a day with inane bullshit, it's not "fun", it's borderline harassment and nobody is going to take to kindly to it.

I shouldn't waste so much of my time explaining your own behaviour to you. I think you can see it, you just want to flaunt your non-compliance then hop up on the cross when the community complains. Get fucked, people need the wood.

How would the jaw thing affect that?

Because of freedom of speech, that's why. Call yourself a Leprechaun-Martian if you want. No one has to "allow" you to call yourself anything.

"Ron Paul was right"!

If the question was "is fur-farming morally wrong?" then you might be correct, but that's not what this debate was about.

wrong debate :P

Nevertheless, the case itself is pretty interesting, and I was coincidentially - just about 20 minutes ago - considering (as I have a deaf cat) why a deaf person feels compelled to speak (she meows all the time...very loudly [cause she can't hear it]). But anyway, that's another conversation.

What bothers me about this case is mainly contained in this statement:

"'Being deaf is not about being disabled, or medically incomplete - it's about being part of a linguistic minority. We're proud, not of the medical aspect of deafness, but of the language we use and the community we live in.'"

It seems they've taken the idea that they're handicapped too much to heart. I feel for them and how it must be to live in a world that everyone else feels is inherently devoid of total experience. Along with the treatment they likely received as children, they probably feel alienated from the rest of us. Yes, deaf people are a minority in society. But this is not a minority in the same sense as a cultural or racial minority. It seems like they don't want to feel the same alienation from their children as they do from others. They want a kid who shares their same reality and perspective similar to people wanting their children to grow up with their religious beliefs.

But this isn't ideological, this is physical. Quadriplegics are a minority in society too, and we wouldn't tolerate a mother cutting off her child's limbs because she wanted a quadriplegic child. Brutal analogy, perhaps, but it illustrates my contention. Being deaf is a handicap. It seems it would take a pretty warped mind to want to pass on a detriment to strengthen your numbers.

What makes you happy may make the next person unhappy, etcetera. It seems untenable to me to build up a philosophy around an intangibility such as happiness.

When we try to base a philosophy or society on that principle, then we have different sides who have different ideas of what will make you truly happy.

To some that will be to follow the will of God, to some that will be to ignore every social convention and live as they please.

But I should really read more of this guys stuff first before I say anymore, or else I'll probably just end up looking dumb. :P

We elect our representatives democratically, who then go on to make laws which are enforced by the justice system. The checks & balances here are that the courts can only apply the laws laid down by the legislative branch, however, in appeals, the (supreme) court can find a law passed by the legislature unconstitutional and have it struck down. The final check comes in the form of the citizen on a jury. As a jury member we have the right not to simply judge whether the accused is guilty of breaking the law, but we have the right (and duty) to judge the law itself. A jury is perfectly within its rights to refuse to convict on the basis that the law itself is either unjust or being misapplied.

It's called nullification, and it, along with voting, is our most basic power as citizens.

The skaters at the ice rink don't need a director to act in an orderly manner, only the desire not to crash or get run over, and have a good time.

I get the feeling this is the gist of your argument. Could you explain exactly what you mean by this?

Great party, losers.