I think that going into outer space would be a very cool experience, but a potentially frightening one. Sooooo many things could go wrong from the first second you even turn on the "engine." Your shuttle (or ship since they cancelled the shuttle program) could explode, your jets might give out halfway into the atmosphere-splat, you could miss your target and go sailing out into endless space with no way of getting home, you could crash into an infinite number of things, a solar storm could burn you to a crisp, the list goes on and on. But all of that said, I think I might enjoy it .

AuraBlaze : It is a true tragedy, then, that men are not angels nor do angels govern men. Of all of the brilliant quotes from The Federalist Papers, why did you pick that one, just out of curiosity?

Johnnyflickan : still going back to the gun issue, I am going to borrow Aurablaze's idea and pull a quote from the federalist on arms regulation. In The Federalist #19, Madison says that "We may form some judgment of this scheme of military coercion from a sample given by Thuanus. In Donawerth, a free and imperial city of the circle of Suabia, the Abbe de St. Croix enjoyed certain immunities which had been reserved to him. In the exercise of these, on some public occasion, outrages were committed on him by the people of the city." I will spare you the details, but a force of thousands of men was called with help from the Duke of Bavaria in order to disarm and calm the crowd. You can interpret this as you may, whether it be in your eyes a just revolution or an unjust riot. But to me, it was just a case of kids being handed knives. When citizens are given guns, bad things are bound to happen eventually. But being perfectly honest, as long as the use of guns by the public is regulated to small arms, I don't see much of a problem with it. Sorry for going off of the present discussion, I just wanted to wrap up a previous one.

Wakan Tanka : First point: make your posts more coherent s'il vous plait. Now, how would you recommend a government go about giving more liberty and pursuit of happiness? I will agree that they are great things to have, but the problem is that the more liberties a population is given, the more liberties they want, and the less control the government has. What you seem to want is something more along the lines of laissez faire, the time before government had much of any regulations whatsoever. But this just promotes insanity in the economy. A few people gain absurd amounts of wealth and power at the expense of everyone else, and the majority of the country suffers. I am sorry if I am completely misunderstanding you. Explain your point.

I have always had needle shots my whole life. Even my yearly flu shots are needles, so I am actually not completely sure what this debate is about . I actually have mild needle phobia, and thus I absolutely HATE anything that is even kind of sharp, pointy, or threatening looking. My friends actually make fun of me all the time for it.... I can't really cook because I hate knives, I cannot do many things if I go on a mission trip because I hate nails, the list goes on. I guess the underlying problem is that I hate pain? I never really thought about it too much, but to answer the prompt, I hate needles and flu shots (because to me they are the same thing ).

Atheism is the lack of belief in God (or a similar deity- type figure or whatever you want to call it). In my opinion, this is by extension the lack of religion. A religion is by Google dictionary: "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods." If there is no belief, there is no religion. I have known many atheists to take their beliefs to such an extreme level that it seems like atheism IS their religion, such as those who are so adamant in their disbelief as to track down all non-atheists and do their best to shut down their victim's religion entirely. In one sense, it could be said that they follow atheism religiously , but that does not mean that atheism is a religion.

Perhaps I am biased because of the generation I was born in, but my favorite batman was almost certainly Dark Knight. The Joker was PERFECT. If you had told me that Heath Ledger was truly insane, I would have believed you in a heartbeat. Everything he did was perfectly in character of an insane person, from his "business card" that he threw on the table (a joker playing card with nothing on it) to his good ol' "magic trick." It was clever, action packed, funny, the best representation of what batman should be. The original Batmans were not bad, per se, but Dark Knight is infinitely better than all of them in my opinion.

I am not a huge fan of those incredibly gory and ridiculous horror movies, but I can appreciate producers who can make a movie with a fair amount of suspense without adding all of the unnecessary blood and guts. I can't think of a perfect example of what I mean, but I thoroughly enjoyed I Am Legend, for one. Although I suppose that movie is pretty mild compared to many others. Halloween is another good one, but I have only seen it once a very long time ago, so I do not remember it well enough to judge perfectly. The movie that probably scared me the most was Paranormal Activity, but in my opinion, that does not make it the best. I like many other horror movies more.

In the words of some of my friends "Breaking Bad is like the first Matrix." Personally, I would not even compare the two. I love the show a heck of a lot better hands down. I can't even label what it is about it that is so appealing. It just..... is. Thing has been nominated and has even won so many awards (golden globe, best male actor, outstanding drama, the list goes on) that it is pretty much impossible to ignore the thing. You have total empathy with the characters, too. I can feel the Walter's situation (trying to avoid spoilers) like it is my own. Love it.

I can guess that many people on this site are going to be very good at math and science. Partially because the types of people that gaming forums attract are probably the math/science types. But also because there are more branches of those two topics than most others. But to stick with the common trend, I am also very good at math and science, but I appreciate English class and am actually fairly good at French. History is alright, and I am not that bad at it either, but I just do not enjoy it as much, and so I typically do not spend as much time trying to learn it. 

Eddy88 : You would not even ask her to go "with" you to the dance itself? You would just ask her if she wanted somebody to accompany her home? Or am I just misunderstanding your post? Sorry if I am being a bit weird, as I really did not get very much sleep last night. Things that would normally make sense have not made very much sense for the past few days...

Johnnyflickan : I am still not totally sure that I agree with your hunting sentiments, but you did put up a good idea in the form of your point about pollution reduction. I think a government that had reasonable regulations on how much resources a state can use up has the potential to be a good thing. As it is, humans are using ridiculous quantities of limited fuel, which can only end poorly for both us and the planet. If governments spent more of their budget on researching into better, cleaner, more reliable fuel, it could have a major impact on the future.

Any creative way you can think of . If you are a girl, say how you would like to BE asked. Stay appropriate, though. 

thenumberone : Alright I suppose I can leave this discussion at that. Mostly I joined this thread because the first post stated many points that I happen to disagree with, as already stated previously. But I should not be so arrogant as to say that America is the greatest of all the countries in the world. Just as everyone is different, every country is different as well, and significant in its own fashion. So in one way, I agree with this thread in that America is not the greatest nation. But one would be hard pressed to find another candidate. Thank you for the debate. I actually thoroughly enjoyed it. We should do it again sometime . 

I have come to see the gun issue as thenumberone does. It could be possible to have a job for hunters, and have the government perhaps pay them (there might actually be a job for "hunters" but I am not totally sure- I have no knowledge in that area). And besides, we get plenty of meat from livestock raised for the purpose of being eaten. Fish are also a great supply of meat that does not require guns. Killing animals with a gun has become something of a sport, but what sport is in it at all? Hunting is just unnecessary, and guns even more so. 

thenumberone : Haha once more I am trumped by the "ideal but not believable" card. I concede your point that this is a forum about what we would wish a government would be. And to tell you the truth, I believe that it would be possible to totally eliminate weapons if we tried hard enough. And it is undeniable that if there were NO weapons, the country would be a better place. However, the military idea still strikes bells in my head. It does not take much incentive for some stupid nation to attack (it is a heck of a lot easier to start a war than a peace), and if that happened to our subject country, it would take a little more than 1/10 total income to not get crushed. But I suppose there's just no way to tell, is there? Japan has the easy way of it...

Johnnyflickan : Uuuuh lobotomy=surgery that cuts up people's brains....... So you want one ruler and everyone else gets their brain sliced open O.O???? That seems like an interesting idea . Your alternate idea seems more likely, making the rulers more "adaptable" as you put it. But doing that would essentially get rid of all government entirely, as if they won't make decisions without the people, how useful are they at all?

thenumberone : This is more like it . I can agree with pretty much all of these. However, having no guns invites people who illegally have guns anyway to reign free. The common man has no way to protect himself from an aggressor who does have a gun. On a similar note, pumping no money into the military invites foreign countries to invade, as the subject country would have no way to defend itself. But for every other point you made, I agree. And I think that the system in deus ex would be possible under a similar method, using modern technology to tap into a giant network. But that would just invite hackers to crash the whole system... If only humans were telepathic.... 

mlb789 : Yes, an honest government would be fantastic, but let me tell you- it is extraordinarily rare. The problem is that the members of the government do not have the first clue as to what the ideals of the people are. They only do what they know how to do best, which just so happens to be considered to be corrupt. But man, I wish there was an honest government... I concede your point, however, especially since this forum was created to discuss the qualities of the ideal government. Honesty would be ideal. I just wanted to come up with a system that would be impossible to house corruption, leaving nothing to chance. It would only take one dishonest person in the wrong place to ruin an honest government. 

Mobouis1 : I will also agree with your ideas as well, but there are also a few problems present. Although having no wars in thirty years would be ideal, you have to realize that the United States hasn't had 30 years of peace since its creation almost 300 years ago. Human nature is to want everything, and be willing to fight for it. On the same note, your second idea is also good (about mostly domestic spending), but if a government exclusively spends on the people, where is all the money for the military, assuming that you probably won't have thirty years of peace. I like the way you think though.

mlb789 : So you want a form of democracy where the power mostly rests with the people, but the government has the right to reject the people in specific cases. I would say that I mostly agree with you, but the only problem lies with the question of when the "rejections" would end. If the government realized that it had enough power to reject all notions made by the people, then there is a chance that it would start rejecting ideas left and right, claiming that they are all "too radical." This turns into less of a democracy and more of something else entirely.