[QUOTE="dkdk999"][QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] You must have a warped view of libertarianism then. -Sun_Tzu-

That's quite a vague definition. Under that description one could call almost any hierarchy "just" and remain libertarian.

I would describe libertarianism as the desire for autonomy. Not that I'm trying to impose my definition of the term on you . . .

I consider myself a libertarian. We have a Union on GS, but it is no longer active.

I think facebook should identify the though police working for different schools/governments/businesses and ban their accounts.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

Are you suggesting that we went to war in Afghanistan in 2001 all so we could build a pipeline 13 years later?

chandlerr_360

And yes, I am suggesting that the United States and co. indeed invaded and occupied Afghanistan with the intent of forcefully removing the Taliban regime, creating a puppet regime with corporate influence and creating a secure route for privately owned, invested and soon to be immensly profitable pipeline.

I'm pretty sure we went into Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden and disrupt Al Qaeda's operations there. Yea.

Are you suggesting that we went to war in Afghanistan in 2001 all so we could build a pipeline 13 years later?

Black

ITT- Whine about Russian stereotypes, then stereotype Americans.

For me it is a mix of the first and last. I won't commit murder/assault/theft because those things are morally wrong, but I don't give two sh!ts about red right hand turn arrows.

The biggest disadvantage to bulpups is the distance between the trigger and the fire control group. In traditional rifles the distance is no more than a few centimeters, in a bulpup you need long connecting rods that run from the rigger to the actual mechanism that fires the gun. This translates to a trigger pull that is "mushy." When shooting at distances past 100m, trigger control becomes very important so a clean breaking trigger is essential for good shots.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

[QUOTE="VaguelyTagged"] i think so.

edit: i'm not asking whether it is morally acceptable,just asking if you think this rule does apply politically.

VaguelyTagged

I would say that there are selective forces that apply to political careers. (If you can't get votes, then you won't be a politician for long) Those forces certainly can have a detrimental effect on the political process because politicians will choose to do the politically expedient thing not necessarily what is good for their country or constituency. I don't really see what that has to do with the evolution/creationism debate though.

Oh I see. Evolution is not supported by politicians for nefarious reasons. There are a lot of politicians (in the USA) that are actively against the teaching of evolution and often try to draft legislation designed to censor it or promote religious theories in its place. So your buddies conspiracy theory is wrong sauce.

Evolution is widely accepted in the academic world however, and often to the exclusion of other ideas. This is not because of some plot though, rather it is because the theory of evolution best explains all available biological evidence and has withstood the test of peer review for nearly a century. Creationism is rejected because it has no evidence to support it and because continually fails the peer review process, not because of some evil western plot.