>>165
Damn it. Ya, you're right. Who, not how many. Well...Just speaking for myself, the fundamental principle that if it doesn't hurt anyone, it should be legal. So if it hurts someone, it should be illegal. It's the principle that decides what is legal or illegal.
Anyway, here's the kicker Nancy. If someone thinks Microsoft is a dictatorship, they need to quit and find another job. Unlike Microsoft, we can't just quit the government and find another. Doesn't work that way. And should Microsoft be a democracy? You see, sweetie, in a way it is. Shareholders are the citizens.
You are the second person that seems to think the government has been an innovator. Now, I'm not quite sure if you mean innovation or invention; they are related but not necessarily the same. I'll assume you meant innovation. If, as the definition goes, innovation is the act of creating something new -- in order to solve a problem -- then we can see quite plainly that the government is as innovative as you are knowledgeable of British government. You have social security circling the drain, medicare crapping out -- oh and I hate those programs -- a discontented populace and an army that is not serving its legitimate function. To date, those problems have only increased. Why? Because government has become more and more involved.
Government is creating problems, ones it can't fix. That, my child, is not innovation. That is cluster-face-fucking anything good out of existence.
And one last thing, pretty girl. I'm not a capitalist. I can tolerate any economic form or government form so long as I have personal freedom. For me, it's all about personal freedom. Bye bye now.