Well, you've made no case for proving that the reason Russians want a "strong hand" is because of fear. Different countries have different cultures that ultimately want different things. Russia wants to be lead by a strong president, but that certainly doesn't imply that they want that due to fear. Also, whilst you may be close to the mark with your assumption that the situation in Russia is controlled by fear, you made direct accusations of cheating in elections which require actual evidence rather than simply summation.

"But the U.S. is also by far the most generous country in the world, and we do have every right to be going after Bin Ladin and the Taliban in Afghanistan."

I certainly doubt that America is by any standard the most generous country in the world. Which measure are we going by to calculate generosity? How about a percentage of GDP in foreign aid (22nd in the world), or funds given after the tsunami disaster (25th)? Once again, can you back that up? I'll definitely agree with justification for the US war in Afghanistan though.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_eco_aid_don_percap-economic-aid-donor-per-capita

"Again, Georgia would beg to differ, I think, as far as instigating turbulence. "

Uhm, no, Georgia was the instigator and Russia just reacted far too strongly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_wa

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2519908/Caucasus-in-crisis-Georgia-invades-rebel-region.html

"And it is hard to believe that all of the reports of Russia selling arms to whoever has money, regardless of motive, is just a rumor."

The US has been doing this for years. They funded and armed both Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden

http://www.greenleft.org.au/2001/465/25199

http://www.democracynow.org/2004/6/9/the_reagan_saddam_connection_we_create

Like I said to someone else, assuming that there being ghosts means god is real is incorrect. It only holds true if your speculation on what a ghost is holds true. All we know of ghosts (or the idea of ghosts) is that they are some kind of unexplainable physical manifestation. Whether they are trapped souls living in the afterlife is purely speculation.

You know what they say about assuming, right? Yeah, it was at this point that your argument fell apart. Ghosts could be the result of god, sure, but they could also be the result of a ghost creating machine held in the depths of the pentagon, or rips in space/time, or physical manifestations of memories, or any other of the infinite number of possibilities. Sorry, but ghosts don't prove god.

It's possible to define anything you want as anything you want. That doesn't alter whether or not it remains irrelevant though, and masquerading a poorly defined concept as another poorly defined concept remains just as irrelevant I'm afraid.

Wo wo wo. We can't just be throwing around claims like that as if they're facts now, can we? Can you back that up?

(I also fixed your grammatical error, as it's a pet hate of mine).

"That aside, the list of popular leaders who in spite of their popularity it would have been in the interest of world peace had they stepped down (which of course they never do) is pretty long. "

Mostly agree with you here. But as I said, I don't really see Russia as an instigator of increased world turbulence (the US has that corner of the market firmly under control at the moment).

This is kind of stuff that shows exactly why you're perceived extremely poorly by the rest of the world. Everyone else is well aware of the US "do whatever the hell we want" attitude, and when you're overtaken by other world superpowers (which will happen soon) you'll probably have a very hard time clawing back your poor reputation on the world stage to be able to compete.

And frankly, if the US is going to repeatedly ignore the UN and break its rules, then they should withdraw from the UN. What's the point of being one of the biggest countries in an alliance of countries working towards a common goal, and then just do whatever the hell you want? The world would be a much safer place right now if the US hadn't gone against the UN, started an illegal war and been responsible for perpetuating terrorism to its current level and increasing the dislike of the west by middle eastern countries. Maybe if we all spent a little more time collaborating (or as some people like to call it: "globalisation") together towards a common goal rather then just being out for ourselves, we could actually get some stuff done.

It is hardly a dictatorship. Putin is extremely popular in Russia. Medvedev was the elected president, as Putin was unable to be elected again, but he chose to name Putin as Prime Minister as, like I said, he is extremely popular in Russia.

And to be honest, I don't really think Russia are in any way bothered about the US. You can hardly blame them for their aggression in regards to the proposed missile system in Poland. Would you allow Russian missiles in Canada? Nope.

Putin has bettered Russia in regards to actual Russians. He's overseen steadily rising oil prices and cheap credit from western banks, the economy bouncing back from crisis, GDP increasing six-fold, poverty cut more than half, and average monthly salaries increasing by 150%. His human rights record is, as you say, sketchy. But your rhetoric is sadly misplaced towards the Russian people, who happen to think Putin is great.

I also find it ironic that the guy responsible for the majority of the time wasting debates is that one who is currently complaining about it.

I'd like to add a fourth option, which is to appoint moderators who's sole purpose are to ensure that debates are acceptable. The moderators cannot stop debates purely because they don't support the views, but only intervene when debates go past the levels of acceptability.

I'm not a fan of moderation in general, but when it is required (as I believe it's coming to be here) it can be a very good way to instantly and efficiently deal with any problems. And of course, moderators are directly answerable to the community.

The surveillance aspect of Britian become noticable with the introduction of CCTV cameras. Initially they were used to monitor the parts of city centres that were shown to have higher crime than other areas. The social benefits of this type of surveillance are obvious: the visibility of CCTV made people think twice about commiting crimes, crimes that were commited were recorded and the public generally felt safer knowing that these crime "hotspots" were being watched. When problems with society occur, public confidence can be gained not just by actually dealing with the problem, but at least looking as if you're dealing with the problem, and CCTV definitly did this. The use of CCTV has now increased exponentially, with the average Brit being caught on CCTV over 300 times a day. What started as a way of monitoring crime hotspots has now become a way of monitoring everyone, and this is where the use of surveillance starts to become unacceptable.

It's a fact of life that when you are out in public, you expect to be monitored in some aspects by the government. There will be CCTV cameras and government will have exposure to certain aspects of what you have done in public, and I believe that a certain amount of this is acceptable if it is used for the right reasons. Althought I think the comparison to Big Brother is a little far fetched, unfortunately the current situation in Britain does remind me of certain aspects of 1984; namely the "war" that had been raging and was used as the reason to allow the government to pass outrageous laws. This is evident in the way that terrorism is used a scapegoat to allow government to become more invasive in our lives. The level of invasiveness of public life is reaching unaccpetable levels, but this is something that people can learn to live with; no amount of whining about it is going to change it.

Unfortunately though, the terrorism scapegoat is being used to advecate invasion into our private lives, and this is definitely what I draw the line. The massive invasion into private lives probably began with the proposed introduction of ID cards. These ID cards will hold massive amounts of data about a person, all held on a centralised database under government control, with extremely personal biometric information; all of which will (as has already been made extremely clear by the government) be sold for marketing purposes. The ID card system, along with the centralised government database, has been bought in through the terrorism scapegoat.

The same now is happening for a centralised government database of all digital communications. The terrorism card has been played once again, and government makes the case that a complete history of all digital communications will help fight terrorism. Ignoring the fact that a centralised database of this type is impossible to implement, the fact that telephone companies and ISPs hold this information already is irrelevant. The difference is between what is and isn't essential. It is essential for telephone companies to hold these records in order to bill us correctly, however it is not essential to hold this information purely to spy on us.

The surveillance society has grown beyond what it originally was. It was used originally to help make the public feel safer and to try and combat crime. Now, the terrorism scapegoat is used to pass laws and systems that begin to enter the realms of private life without reasonable purpose, and this is where government snooping is not acceptable.

Also, I think you'll find that a lot of Brits DO moan about it, and moan about it often. Unfortunately moaning about it doesn't do anything, and people have reached a point of apathy about the whole situation. Nothing will change and people don't have the drive to eneact change about this situation. The introduction of these systems is extremely sneaky; they never become what they were touted as, and this is the main problem. People don't realise what is happening until it's too late.

My vote goes to Buffy Summers of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Obviously, you have the literal sense of the word, and there is no denying that Buffy is one of the strongest fictional females around. However, she is extremely strong in her growth as a slayer, her acceptance of her fate and her deviation from the will of the counsil in how she must go about her duties.

She stops every bad guy in her path, puns at every opportunity, and has the moral fibre to boot.

...and she's damn hot.

How I am here is the Big Bang, followed by Abiogenesis, followed by Evolution through Natural Selection.

For societies that deem it acceptable, there's nothing wrong with polygamy in any form if all parties are consenting.

There were most definitely same-sex marriages, and the idea that marriage was specifically for opposite sex couples to benefit society is pure speculation on your part.

The argument at hand is that proposition 8 fundamentally changes the equal protection clause of the constitution and therefore should not have been a ballot measure. This argument is supported by the fact that the CA supreme court previously defined gay marriage as a right under that clause.

The USA is a representative republic, not a democratic country, and there is actually a major difference.

Proposition 8 was a fundamental change to the California constitution and therefore requires far more than a popular vote in order to see it passed. The method through which proposition 8 was passed was unconstitutional, and that's the reason that the CA supreme court has agreed to hear legal action being taken against proposition 8.