Qwyrx

I often see people claiming that Obama, et al, are trying to create a single World Government with wide-reaching powers, either by strengthening the UN or some other method (recently, I've seen people saying that's the real goal of people supporting greenhouse gas emission controls). While I don't think Obama is actually trying to do this, even if he were, why do people always act like that's a bad thing? What do people believe is the inherent problem with having a single (or, at least a small number of) world government(s)? I am asking in all sincerity, because I really don't see why it's "obvious" that a One World Government is bad.

For those that don't know, American exceptionalism is the belief that the USA is somehow different and better than all of the rest of the countries in the world. That we are "more free," "more right," and "more important," even when compared to other democracies or world powers. Do you think that this is a doctrine worth supporting, and is it accurate?

When a spammer puts links directly into a question, a person may mistakenly or unknowingly click on the question, and get maliciously redirected to another site. Shouldn't Y!A just disallow the use of links in question titles? If someone needs to reference a link, let them put it in the details section, so that at least no one gets sent somewhere unsuspectingly.

The worst is when the entire question is just a link, which makes it difficult even to click on the question to report it as spam.

Is there any reason why links should ever be allowed in titles? Is there some way for us to bring this problem to the site administrator's attention?

Then does that mean that either heaven or hell (or both) have a very sizable population of souls who have no experience with life on Earth? Who were not aware of the outside world for even a fraction of a second? Or does God treat miscarriages differently?

To clarify, I'm asking this of Christians who claim that abortion is wrong because life begins at conception. I want to know what they think has happened to the billions of miscarried "babies" who died in their first few weeks of "life."

As a Christian, I've heard many other Christians state that life begins at conception, and thus abortion is morally wrong. However, I don't recall reading that anywhere in the Bible; can anyone point me to the relevant passage? I don't understand how this can be clear from the Bible when the writers didn't even know what "conception" is, nor did they know about sperm, eggs, or any of the other biological details of pregnancy.

4 years ago, Savoie (as his lawyer admitted today) became a naturalized citizen of Japan. This means that 1) He should have renounced his U.S. citizenship, as Japan doesn't allow dual citizenship; and 2) It implies he is the unethical one, since it appears he brought the family to the U.S. specifically to steal the kids away from his wife (at least partially).

I agree, she shouldn't have just run off with the kids, but what he did seems to have ethical problems as well.

What I want to know, though, is why the U.S. media isn't including this critical part of the story? Are they trying to make Japan look bad, or the U.S. look good, or what?

I'm talking about the "My Favorite" section of the main site. Whenever I mistakenly run my mouse down the left side of my screen while I'm trying to read something in the middle, they get in my way. Yes, I know they go away in a few seconds, but I never want to see them. Is it possible to disable this function?

What happens if two companies from two different parts of the world both want to put a satellite into the same orbit (or into two crisscrossing orbits)? Presumably one company could just place its satellite a little further out or closer in, but who decides who gets to go where? Is there an international body that regulates the location of near-earth objects?

Anything you want--price is not a concern.

And does it make a difference which kind of vampire you are (Rice vs. Twilight vs. Bram Stoker vs. Van Helsing)?

It irritates me when people just put a statement of fact on Y!A. It irritates me even more when people post a statement and then a long essay supporting their opinion, and never once ask a question (this seems to happen most often in R&S). Do you think we should report these questions as violating Community Guidelines?

When you report a question or answer for violating the Terms and Conditions, it says that you can gain and lose influence based on how accurate your reporting is. Is there a way to find out if you are considered a good/Top reporter?

I'm trying to explain to non-native English speakers the distinction between "in the world" and "around the world." For example:

There are many wars in the world.

There are many wars around the world.

English is the most widely used language in the world.

**English is the most widely used langauge around the world.

The last sentence is improperly formed. However, I can't find any reference guide that explains the difference between these two phrases. Any suggestions?

I'm a 6'1' (~185 cm) Caucasian living in Japan. I was thinking about going bowling this weekend. I don't own my own ball, so I need to use a house ball. My worry is that, since I'm a bit taller than the average Japanese man, the holes in the ball won't be drilled far enough apart. Even in the U.S. I have to spend quite a bit of time looking for the right ball. Any taller folk ever try bowling in Japan?

And yes, I actually mean this completely literally, I'm not making some sort of bizarre indirect inappropriate adult reference.

I teach ESL in a foreign country. As a native speaker, I have a strong intuitive grasp of English grammar, but I often find it difficult to explain grammar concepts to my students (or other teachers). Can someone recommend a website(s) that can aid me? Preferably, the site should be searchable (so, if I, for example, want to look up how to use "just" in a sentence, or want to research determiners, I can find the information easily). And I mean a website with information already available (in reference/tutorial form), not a website where I can post specific grammar questions (of which I already know a few).

I remember reading (it was probably a year or more back) a website that had the "menus" that a bunch of different musicians request from the concert venues. Some requested all sorts of junk food, some listed dozens of bottles of alcohol, others had very specific gourmet food requests. I tried a whole bunch of search terms, but couldn't find anything.

Many accounts in the early Torah/Old Testament indicate that early humans had multi-hundred year life spans. By later years, and certainly no later than New Testament times, we see humans with lifespans more comparable to our own. Is there a specific point in the Bible where we can see this shift? Are there Talmudic commentaries that explain why this shift occurred? Was the shift gradual or sudden?

And, of course, non-JudeoChristians can answer, but I'm looking specifically for this shift. In fact, just pretend like I'm talking about the story of the Bible, and conducting literary analysis--I'm looking for, within the context of that story, when the shift occurred, and what the "author's" reasoning for the shift was.

If you want to answer strictly "practical" questions about car repair, math, grammar, etc., fine, don't provide an email address. But if you are going to answer political, religious, or other issues, and you are going to do so in an inflammatory way, including the use of false statements, disorted claims, etc., then you should have the common decency to be able to accept emails. This allows the questioner to, at least in private, rebut the insanity that you may be spewing.

If you are opposd to the so-called "amnesty" provision of the proposed Senate compromise, what do you want to happen. Please propose a specific plan for handling theestimated 12 million illegal immigrants. Please include with that an explanation for how you would find and capture these people (at one per minute, your talking about 24 years); how you would find enough judges/officers to hear there concerns (everyone has the right to defend themselves, to present documents and arguments); how you would fill the jobs they leave (currently, U.S. unemployment is at 6.1 million); how would you keep the economy stable when the cost of produce, construction, cleaning, etc immediately jumps (to pay the real wages needed to fill the jobs). In other words, it's fine to be opposed to "amnesty," but you have to have a plan. What's yours?

Does anyone know where I can find the actual text of the working proposal created by Kyl and Kennedy discussed in the news today? Since it's not actually a bil, it doesn't appear (that I could find) on the official Congressional website. The news articles all have ambiguous, unclear statements that I'd like to know more details about.