Izzy

Welcome back. In actuality, I'm almost overjoyed with you coming to your senses about the tax situation. Taking your new proposition a step further. On the premise that sufficient taxes exist to subsidize schools, roads, etc., do you still oppose high quality universal health care if we have the money for it anyway? In your hypothetical situation (the first one, I'll get to the second in a minute), you're essentially asking whether I'd rather one person die or a billion starve to death. While all life is valuable, I think we can all come to the consensus that the needless suffering of one personal is almost negligible contrasted with billions. I'm not going to lie and say there isn't a certain hierarchy to life. The general consensus is that people > animals, and many people > one person. It's tragic, nevertheless, and I would prefer it was avoidable altogether, but yeah, I'd choose a billion people over one. Example, I would personally travel back in time to politically assassinate Hitler and feel not the slightest remorse. Okay, hypothetical situation number two. The evacuation of NYC, even if done in a systematic way, puts financial, population-esque (word), and food related hardships on wherever the people are accepted as refugees. Not only would it be a major inconvenience for all those involved, but a remarkable amount of jobs are eliminated and schools would be over-flooding with new students. People are likely to die (suicide, road rage, general outrage, violent protests, etc.) in the chaotic process. Assuming you won't be nice enough to allow me to build a new and better New York in the process, yeah, I'd kill someone. Though, it wouldn't be random. It'd either be someone whose death is imminent anyway or someone about to go on a killing rampage. Hey, for your next situation, can you come up with something that's actually likely to transpire in the real world? While these are goods tests of morality, you're not proving a point, and if you think you are, it's actually a very silly method of going about it. (Lawl, calling us intelligent and then attempting to "enlighten" us in an almost childlike fashion followed by a ridiculous "quiz" afterwards is a bit contradicting, no? Though, I do favor flattery over insults.)

ZEBRA APPLE PLIED

XYLYL GODLY

Okay, for the foreign policy thing, it means you don't oppose war, but you don't agree on intervening in other countries' affairs. Authoritarian is the opposite of anarchist. Basically, you want laws forbidding drug use and you want the government to set out specific rules and shove them all down your throat. For the culture, way to the left means you support personal freedoms (abortion, drug use, gay rights, etc.) and way to the right means you oppose them. But you're fairly in the middle on all accounts, so it means you sway back and forth between issues. (For example, you can adamantly oppose abortion but be pro gay rights, putting you somewhere in the middle as opposed to someone that either supports or is against both.) Also, lmfao: http://www.sjgames.com/illuminati/politics.html Libertarian ftmfw. "LIBERTARIAN/ANARCHO-CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull." ..So much better compared to, "PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors decide who gets the milk. REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk."

Well, what about immigration? ...That wasn't discussion. That was non-constructive arguing.

Mmm, got bored, took a political quiz, still stand pretty much where I expected myself to at left social libertarian with the pacifists and anti-war activists. I'm left 4.05, libertarian 6.32. -5.59 in foreign policy and -7.88 in the culture war. Apparently. I'm fairly left for libertarian. (Which is why the labels are off, meh.) I was talking to Unreality on AIM the other day, and he said something that made a lot of sense. One can still be anti-Authoritarian and want a smaller government while still advocating life's necessities like health care, welfare, etc. So, I think that ties up my thoughts fairly well. The government should be less of a control mechanism and more of a beneficial service. Bear with me, I'm about to combine a few contrasting views, but I am, offically, a left-leaning socialist libertarian with moderately conservative economic views. ..Yeah, I think that's about right. Anyway, enjoy: http://www.gotoquiz.com/politics/political-spectrum-quiz.html

Well, the only words on that list five letters long beginning with "qo" are qoppa and qorma, both eliminated by the st logic. So, while I didn't explicitly include that in my analysis of the word, it sort of goes without saying. Regardless, I get +25, and it's up to t8t8t8 whether or not she wants to award herself points for my mistake. I don't want to host. Anyone, feel free to take it.

comet

The second letter is o, eliminating the q as a possibility for the first letter. From black to boast, we know b isn't the first letter and a isn't the third letter, so either the s or t is correct. Since TWIST has both s and t at the end and score one, we know the middle letter is not i. This eliminates the QUI from QUILT, and leaves the LT. Therefore, is QUILT scores 2, the last two letters are LT, and if it is just one, it's T. If it scores 0, the second to last letter is S.

QUILT

Last two letters are AM because madam - 3 and madly - 1, and they're all that changed.

Yeah, that's what I meant by people actually having to do research if we scrap political parties altogether. It isn't a bad idea, I just don't think it's possible right now. I totally agree that if people vote based on issues rather than parties, we'd be better off. Personally, I think it'd be funny to become a politician just to run under the Republican name and propose fully liberal ideas just to see them ratified. (Unlikely, but hey, when you live in a nation where an astounding amount of people vote becasue someone has a D or an R next to their name, who's to say I won't get elected?) ...On second thought.. maybe it is possible. How outraged will a nation be if we make it illegal to out your political party if you are a politician? The only way I can see them no longer existing is if they go out of use for a long time. Or if everyone just starts campaigning under the independant title. ..Tricky. Doable. Maybe. I'll look into the article when I have some more time.

Well, we can't do that. That's pretty much on par with impossibility as eliminating stereotypes in high schools. The overwhelming majority of people are always going to have a way to distinguish themselves from other people. Even if you get rid of the names, you're still going to have your extremely left and your extremely right people, who are going to oppose each other regardless of political affiliation. ...Lol, the only difference is that people are actually going to have to do some research. ..That's... probably a good thing.

Yeah, that won't be eliminated, just like we still have governors and mayors while we have a president. We'll just take the hierarchy one step further, and above the presidents of countries will be some sort of supreme overlooker or something. ..You know, honestly, this thread has made me wonder if I'm libertarian. I think I'm more like liberal + wanting the rights to my body. For the most part, I think we need a government in place to maintain order and peace and whatnot.

Why? Think about it back home. Is it fair if Florida has different taxes than California? People should be able to live where they live because they want to live there, not because of a monetary incentive. If we ever find the perfect tax balance (lol, doubtful ), isn't most fair to share it globally?

I can think of a few more reasons. Companies won't be able to flea to countries like Africa anymore for cheap, almost slave-like labor. They'll be held to an international standard where their employees will get fair wages and benefits. If child labor laws and public schooling mandates are globalized, instead of working for twenty cents a day, children will go to school. Literacy rates in poor countries will increase exponentially and the average education a person has will be much higher. I find it difficult to believe that a country where only a select elite can read and write will make it very far. Written language is one of the things that separates a civilized society from organized tribes, and if access to this key is restricted, how can we, as a planet, be expected to prosper? There'll be little reason for war. While civil wars are a possibility (My hands are tied / The billions shift from side to side / And the wars go on with brainwashed pride / For the love of God and our human rights / And all these things are swept aside / By bloody hands time can't deny / And are washed away by your genocide / And history hides the lies of our civil wars), overwhelming pressure from the rest of the world will settle the dispute. You don't see the North fighting the South (uh, *anymore*) because we've settled our differences through diplomatic solutions. If part of the world suggests something the rest of the world doesn't like, instead of threatening to bomb each other for it, we could just negotiate. (Like. Russia: Oh, we want to invade Georgia! Georgia: Nooooo. Please, nooo. USA: Russia, sit back down or we will bomb you. Russia: *invades Georgia* USA: Oh no you didn't! UK: USA, relax, it isn't your problem. USA: I guess. Russia: Pssh, we knew you wouldn't bomb us. Gonna do what we want now. vs. Russia: We want to invade Georiga. Georgia: Oh, I don't think that's a very good idea. USA: Russia, what is your reasoning for this? Russia: Georgia belongs to us. Georgia: No we don't, we seceded. Russia: Illegally! USA: Now now, settle down. Russia, Georgia did secede. Please play nicely. Maybe you two can share? Russia: But we don't want to share! USA: But is that fair to Georgia? Russia: No... USA: Now, if you try any of this funny business, you're not allowed to have any say in international relations for a week. Russia: But.. but.. USA! UK.. can I invade Georiga? UK: *glances over* Ask USA. I'm busy. USA: Now, behave yourself, okay? Russia: Yes sir... *sulks*) ...Okay. Not quite like that, but what I'm trying to say is, taking something away from your kid is more effective than hitting you kid. If a country does something stupid, we can just revoke their say in international matters for a while, which doesn't involve the reckless bombing of entire nations. I read somewhere that we have enough food to feed the world, just not in the right places. If we redistribute food to the places that lack it, starvation is eliminated. Similarly, we were watching a video in biology about a disease that was eliminated in the northern parts of the world because of vaccinations, because still active in the south. Over a decade, scientists funded through some charity tracked it down, vaccinated people, and completely erradicated the disease. If globalized, this would have happened much sooner. Power in numbers. If there ever is a world crisis, everyone working together will stop it much quicker than hundreds of nations fending for themselves. Limitations on information will be removed. Do you see this network of infintie knowledge you're staring into? Places like China (and possibly New Zealand/Australia ) restrict internet search content, isolating their citizens from the wonders of information! We can end that, y'know. We can, but we don't. =/ Uhh.. Yeah.

*bumps* Remember the first 20 or so pages? Let's go back to that. We've done health care to hell, let's steer clear of it for at least 10 pages. So.. uh.. Discuss... stuff..

GLOOM - if 0, R is the second letter. If 2, L is the second letter.

Last letter is S. Raves - 1, Raven - 0, only letter difference.

Geese tells us e isn't the last letter. This gives us _NOM_ from gnome for 1 point, and _ROWN from grown for 2. Knoll = 1, and tolls = 0, so the possible right letters are _NO_L. One of these is correct. _NOM_ - 1 _ROWN - 2 _NO_L - 1 If N from NOM, then it can't be the R or O from ROWN, leaving the WN. (GN_WN) If the O, then we have combinations of RO, OW, O_N (GRO_ _, G_OW_, G_O_N) If M, then, RO, RN, ON (GROM_, GR_MN, G_OMN) GN_WN satisfies _NO_L = 1, but there's no letter than can be plugged in to make a legit English word. GRO_O, G_OW_, and G_O_N all satisfy that _NO_L = 1, and would make o the third letter, same with GROM_ and G_OMN. Gr_mn is our only possibly word where o isn't the third letter, but again, there is no real English word that satisfies those letters. So, by process of elimination, o must be the third letter. This means that N cannot be the second letter and L cannot be the last letter. (And.. yeah, I just realized Glyc posted a much easier way to prove the same thing, so let's hope Grove doesn't equal three. ) *edit* Pssh, never mind. Too slow. >_>

GNOME TOLLS

I think we've been allowing them, but for one word max. Like, I can't post a stream of words and logic between them (as with Nick's gnoll and knoll), but if GNOLL has already been scored as 1, and someone posts KNOLL and says "If it's 0, then the G in Gnoll must be right because the first letter is the only thing to change", it's okay.

ELVES

XYLYL