Zacharias

Not "Messing in other nation's affairs" is not isolationism. Countries such as Poland and Italy don't go around backing rebels or starting "conflicts" in various countries (Post Cold War), but they are involved in the EU, therefore not isolationist. China is a rather bad example. You forgot to mention how the country was involved in a civil war, and how a large portion of the country was still ruled by warlords. The country was extremely divided with a poor economy. Any of the major powers of the time could've walked over the country twice. Probably should've specified that And yes, yes it is.

Whenever I hear of this issue, the word "hypocrite" comes to mind. The USA told Russia to respect Ukraine's sovereignty "or else", yet when Russia infringed Georgia's sovereignty, the USA wasn't nearly this threatening towards Russia. Interesting. Anyways, we need to stop being the world's police force. Just let the Ukraine settle their own problems. If Russia begins slaughtering a bunch of protestors, then we should reevaluate the issue. Until then, just leave them be.

I don't really understand why people believe the New Testament is the world of God and/or Jesus. It was written hundreds of times by hundreds of different authors, none of which talked to or met Jesus, possibly not even his disciples. For all we know, some of Jesus' disciples could've been openly homosexual.

Hey man, look down, your fascist is showing.

I agree. I'm not a biologist/anatomy expert, but I'd think human testing would be a lot more accurate than testing on rabbits and pigs.

There's billions upon billions of flies in the world. The death of one is not going to jeopardize the entire species. Same with humans, really.

So, Moloko, essentially, you wish to oppress a group of people because they do things differently than yourself? Sounds rather hypocritical coming from you. Anyways, if obese people wish to be obese, than they should be allowed to. They have as much of a right to live their life as they wish as anyone else does.

How about you just follow the rules? If the rules are followed, then there are no problems. Player nominated mods are a bad idea. Alliances with a large amount of nations, bloc for example, could nominate one of their friends to be mods, then the mod could go on a rampage and ban everyone who has something negative to say about a bloc member/the alliance in general. Then Sheepy would have to sift through the rubble and fix everything.

As Hereno just stated flies (including most insects (the one known exception being the fruit fly)), cannot feel pain, thus cannot suffer. For the scientific reason, which, thanks to the internet I recently found out, is because insects lack the "Nociceptor", which is a nerve cell that responds to potentially damaging stimuli by sending "signals" to the brain and spinal cord, which results in what we know as "pain". In English, the Fly lacks the nerve cell to feel pain, and therefore cannot suffer.

Elitists run the USA, its not to far fetched to believe elitists from the various "wealthy" countries in the world run the world.

I don't believe animal testing for cosmetic items should be allowed in anyway. However, if an animal (including insects) may hold the cure to some disease (viral, bacterial, fungal, cancer, etc.) inside of it's DNA/somewhere in its body, then in that case it should be allowed.

As long as people "debate" instead of trolling and flaming each other then we should be fine.

People always hate those who enforce the rules. I personally never had a problem with the guy.

So, you are not against guns, you would just like to see the guns to be under the control of the government. The bolded part is completely wrong. The right to bear arms was made to protect the people against it's government. As you may or may not know, the British empire banned the import of gunpowder and guns in the colonies 1774 and began confiscating guns in the colonies in 1775. No guns in the North American colonies would equal no defense against the British empire. After fighting against the British, the founding fathers realized a defenseless populace would result in no defense against a tyrannical government, thus the second amendment was born. Of course they would have no knowledge of a handheld machine gun, but whether or not they would believe such weapons are needed for defense now is unknown. If we ban cocaine/meth/LSD/etc., there would be no more of those drugs, right? Oh wait, those are illegal but they are still around. If we ban alcohol, there would be no more alcohol, right? Oh wait, we tried that but there was still alcohol around. See my logic here? Even if you ban guns, kids are still going to be abused (emotionally, physically, and mentally), neglected, starved, etc. Guns have killed about 700 children over the past eight years. Atleast four children die every day due to abuse/neglect. So you don't have to do the math yourself, that is atleast 1460 children a year. Source Now, I'm not a gun toting redneck republican. I'm one of the farthest things possible from being a republican (or a redneck for that matter). However, I do firmly believe in the right to bear arms, for one reason only: an unarmed populace is at the mercy of its government. There is plenty of examples of this throughout history, especially in recent history. Hitler banned guns, Stalin banned guns, Mao banned guns, and it just so happens these men have killed atleast a combined total of 51 million people. You also can't ignore the fact that these men also took knowledge/education away from their people, but lets not get too far off track