@Parallelopiped - English is my first language, and I may have used it wrong, but I am not sure which of my posts you are referring to. Also what is a Neo-Classical Philanthropist? It doesn't really sound like a political ideology, more of a type of economics mixed with the will to be generous?

Oh, sorry. That must have sounded quite rude. If you look through your posts you'll find one in which you've said effect when you meant affect (I'll not insult you further by pointing out the error in a public forum). Neo-classical philanthropists hold to the teachings of Jacques-Louis David and aim to create a society in which the structures of the past are restructured in a pro-societal way. This was ruled a political ideology in the High Court in Regina v Morris (2009)

@Parallelopiped, I, for one, have no idea what you just said... but then, maybe that was the intent... to talk above everyone's understanding. English please. Thanks.

Vote Parallelopiped. I shall ensure that all solids have three pairs of parallel faces so that however they are arranged you always have a horizontal surface on which to stand.
That is, in a nutshell, my platform. Mind you, I shall be abolishing nutshells on the grounds of curved surface violation.

@Parallelopiped:
Do you think that an overblown sense of self has perhaps effected the misunderstanding of your grammar principals?

I suspect that the only way that any kind of misunderstanding could have been effected would have been through an overblown something or other and myself is the only thing available for blowing so you are quite right. I'm not entirely sure how this affects my line of argument.

I'm not particularly certain what your argument *is*.
If it is that all objects ought to have 3 sets of parallel surfaces, then I suggest that you would never manage to find the funding for prohibiting other sorts of objects.
Also, notice that most *humans* would be outlawed by your proposal, and you would have noone left to enforce your laws nor to collect the said funding from...

There are more things in heaven and earth, SPAO, than are dreamed of in your philosophy. And so I shall have my laws enforced by semi-regular polyhedra and deformations thereof. Plus dollar notes in their natural state are parallelopipeds and thus subject to my will.

Fiscally -- Radically conservative (Except for defense spending)
Socially -- Moderately conservative
Economically -- Radically conservative

I hate socialists, communists, Demo(n)crats, li(e)berals, and the like. I'm really sick of their idiotic bullshit. Does anyone agree with me?

@Parallelopiped - so... your really into mathematics and classical decorative arts? Also I couldn't find any information regarding the court case you cited. Also are you by any chance aware of the book Godel Esher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid?

can never spend too much on defense, eh? The U.S. has more defense spending than the next ten countries combined...

I think it's so damn cute how teabag conservatives are all proud of themselves when they make little primary school puns by misspelling words... like it proves something.

@dexter morgan - it is true that the U.S. spends too much on the military, however if you take their military spending proportional to GDP it is almost the same as Russia (USA = 4.03%, RUS = 3.9%)

@KaptainKool, comparing to GDP may be the right way to go when talking about domestic spending... To judge whether we have sufficient military defense I think the only way to go is to compare it in total spend (and technology and manpower) to other countries - being that we're going to be using it on other countries and not on our own... presumably. Consider that the Soviets were spending 25% of their GDP on military because they had to to maintain any sort of parity with us... they didn't simply stop when they hit 4%. The converse of this should also be true... that if the Soviets dropped their spending, there would have been less need for our spending. Currently, with no Soviets to face off against, the military spending looks more like pork than anything else.

@dexter morgan, true I think you are right on your total spending hypothesis, however the USA no longer has a unified enemy so it is harder to determine how much they should be spending. But don't get me wrong I am a huge proponent of fiscal responsibility and I think that the U.S. could easily cut their Military spending in half.

Pretty much Libertarian but I usually vote conservative. Socialist/Communists are the most dangerous people on the planet.

@Parallelopiped. You are way too three-dimensional in your stand. Use one that has 24 pairs of parallel surfaces and you can guarantee that, even when we figureout how to cross dimensions, you will always have a flat surface to stand on.

But more importantly, make certain all tables and chairs have exactly three legs and they will never wobble.

"Socialist/Communists are the most dangerous people on the planet."

Fuckin' A!

The US doesn't spend enough on defense. That's right. I really just said that. No military is powerful enough until they can conquer the planet twice over. Some might say that huge militaries are pointless. Those same people also scream for help when a foreign army comes to their house and burns it down. The truth is, a lot of people hate America. And we need to be powerful enough to take them out twice over. What if the whole world starts hating us?

@The_Master_Warrior - I am a very right wing person, and even for me you have been saying some outlandish things. How do you expect people to take you seriously when you say we need to be powerful enough to take them out twice over?

That last post made your ideology officially way to extreme.

Socially moderate want everyone cared for, preferably through free market, but willing to put up with Government subsidies for basic (basic food, drink, housing, basic healthcare) needs. Pro-business, but feel regulation should be in place to prevent greed from overriding fear to the extent it did leading up to 08. Strongly pro-interventionist, I feel war with Iraq based on the belief of the intelligence services that Hussein had WMD's was justified. Also feel that U.S needs to either strongarm reform in the U.N or work around them with E.U, Brazil and China to ensure stability.

@ KaptainKool:

"First off China is a Communist country..."

No it isn't. China's rulling party is called 'Communist' in name, but the majority of their policies are not truly communist. China is not a communist country in any meaningful way.

@ arp1407: "Socialist/Communists are the most dangerous people on the planet."

Damn right, and we're coming to get YOU!

@ TMW: "The truth is, a lot of people hate America. And we need to be powerful enough to take them out twice over. What if the whole world starts hating us?"

Or, maybe, you could think about WHY the world hates you, and try to deal with that, so that the world stops hating you so much?

It's a little late to change that, Jamiet.

not too late TMW, the world loved you guys after world war 2, but 60 years of economic imperialism, unnecessary wars and breathtaking hypocrisy has reduced that an awful lot.

the bully with the big gun is always hated. And America, while being a young country has only learned to be bully. It'll change in the future, with understanding, comprehension and a bunch of unnecessary wars...

@KaptinKool. I am aware of the writings of the mighty Douglas. I take as my hero the tortoise. Yourself?

wow fox news really did a number on all you guys, jesus just get a handle on what you know and stop listening to those inflamatory bastards try and poison us against each other, they take advantage of your trust and alter your core beliefs so they can get more ratings

TMW: That is foolishness. If the rest of the world decided to bend its resources in a united way to destroy US hegemony, they could. They have the population, resources, and manufacturing base to do it. And in this highly unlikely scenario that pits the whole world vs the US, we'd be doing without a great quantity of oil, raw materials, etc.

In any case, the entire idea that the world would unite against us for no reason is just bunk. Unless we start doing some Nazi Germany shit.... you know... the kind of thing you're talking about, I think we're fine.

Just to be clear, the U.S. was participating in imperialism long before World War 2; we just didn't have the base for it that other countries did. And there would never be a uniting of the entire world against the United States; the first world benefits too much from oppressing the third world.