Aperson

quote:Originally posted by Prez: I absolutely agree about conservatism and liberalism not being monolithic, Race. Look at Silk and myself. We completely disagree on the Iraq war, for example, yet we both call ourselves conservatives. Jag and I disagree on what is science and what is religion, and again, we are conservatives. Which is why I really don't like the Left/Right way of labelling political positions. And is also why I think this is rather nifty (although, it dosn't solve all the problems). Soback: As long as the US officially ends its trade agreements, I'm perfectly fine with them increasing import tariffs or other regulations involving imports/exports.

I'm sure Heinz would just focus more of its advertising on other countries if what you are suggesting managed to succeed.

I read it. Then again I'm of the opinion that Terrorism (in whatever form it takes) will exist as long as the human race does.

If you didn't take acid... Which drug did you take?

quote:Originally posted by Soback: *Stuff* I agree completely, which is why I hold the opinion that homosexuals couples should be able get the same legal rights as a married couples, we call it, I don't know, "What's in a name?" and be done with it. If that is already true they have nothing to talk about except maybe the Homophobia that seems to be pervasive in today's society. But this is the humour forum and maybe people seem to find bashing religion funny (and sometimes it can be if done right).

quote:Originally posted by Prez: Are you talking Abu Graihb(spelling)? All of the guilty members have been tried and sentenced. That was NOT a U.S. sanctioned operation. It was a couple of young G.I.'s on a power trip lacking proper leadership and supervision. And if you mean Guantanomo, I have stated before that my U.S. Navy bootcamp (from what I've heard, the easiest of the major miliary branches) was far worse than anything those terrorist thugs being held there were subjected to. Nothing reported there amounted to anything close to torture.Fair enough. quote:Originally posted by Prez: Funny, I don't hear you wailing about what freaks we are for owning cars. Children are 1000% more likely to be killed in or by a car. Completely right, there should obviously be more restrictions and/or bans on motor vehicles. On a more serious, it'd be nice if there were safety features on cars concerned with pedestrian accidents.

That was supposed to be a joke (smiley = joke). And I thought there was that whole kerfluffle over that one prison starting with a G (I'm horrible with names). And if that was successfully proven wrong, I am terribly sorry and would like the link to the discussion topic covering it. EDIT: I should at the US has ask for some fairly odd things such as any peace keepers they provide be exempt from any human rights violation trails.

That's what I thought was going on.

About the healthcare thing: The US must be doing things horribly wrong, as it spends the most per capita then any other country. Heck, its private spending is more than the combined private plus public spending per capita of all countries but Germany. And yet the US doesn't have the highest life expectancy or lowest morality rate. However this may have more to do with the United States current drug frenzy* as opposed to any other factor. (*That being the "must prescribe pill" thinking as opposed to looking at lifestyle factors.) Prez: Yes, Saddam did horrible things, that dosn't however erase what the US did. Don't hold your opinions higher than anyone else's? You so need to work on your ego.

Nifty. Looks like the Magscatter Pistol from Planetside.

Or maybe becuase the goverment dosn't track such stats and puts it under vandilism or arson instead. You probably wouldn't actually. Common occurances (which, if 50 cars were torched daily, would be) don't get as much news as uncommon ones. Case in point on how often you hear about say, a murder, opposed to how often you get more than an obituary about a car crash.

The 98 average per day is just due to vandilism in france I would assume (unless your trying to tell me that france has been contiounsly rioting for the past several years) not just due to the "misunderstood and disadvantaged youth" rioting. I've been trying to search for links on how many cars get torched in the United States but so far I've found nothing on yearly rates. But I'm glad you did such a scientific survey on how many cars get torched in the US.

First: That number alone dosn't mean a whole lot unless compared to other countries. Second: Plus I don't think I want to know what thoses two people in stockings are going to do to that poor frog... Oh! The other pictures.

quote:Originally posted by Soback: Major newsflash. Socialism destroys the country within 80 years span. It took that long in Russia, so the reason your countries are not fully collapsed yet is because it's only been 50 years or so. You mean Communism right? Because last I checked Canada has been around for 147 years. In any event, basing how long a country will last on a single countries life span is rather unscientific.

quote:Originally posted by Eclipse: quote:Then why is it working in Norway and Sweden?didn't communism "work" in the USSR until it suddenly collapsed? Sometimes things take longer to bleed out than others. That arguement could be easily applied to captilism...

There's LOTS of scientific evidence for the Big Bang. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_home.html Scroll down to "The Four Pillers of the Hot Big Bang model" for the major stuff. Then again the theory is sometimes disputed (but as of yet, there hasn't really been anything better).

Well, to be fair, ID has had one peer reviewed paper published, but the IC agrument had to be taken out... And being discussed in a scientific forum is very different then trying to get schools to teach it. Plus ID has the bad tendency to go: "Powerful beings created us!" "How did they come into being?" "More powerful beings created them!" "How did they come into being?" "Even more powerful..." Ad nausem

And in any event, ID in its current incarnation is trying to replace evolution. However, how life started is an excellent way to beat each other over the head as there are very few facts so far.

quote:Orignally posted by Jaguar France has this same system, and guess what? It's STILL burning....What your implying is a bad reason not to have the system. That's like saying a politician who also happened to increase economic growth is like Hitler. quote: Orginally posted by Chavik the find would fund the fund but the fund wouldn't find the find.That hurt my brain.

quote:Originally posted by Prez: You know, the ironic thing, at least to me, is that I believe religion is the far weaker entity between the two. Science deals in tangible verifiable results, thus I tend to think that if the average person were going to choose one over the other, they would defer to science. Religion, being faith based as it is, is a tougher pill to swallow. In other words, I really don't see religion being able to put the clamps on science; as a matter of fact, I fear the opposite. You'd think so. But, humans arn't logical beings as a default and religion offers many things that science doesn't, such as explaining away the unknown (even if it is the same answer all the time) and gives them a higher purpose, plus a few other things depending on the religion in question. Not that I am saying that you can't be logical if your religious as the opposite is kinda of true ironicly (For the really hard core type logic). quote: Let us weigh the gain and the loss, in wagering that God is. Consider these alternatives: if you win, you win all, if you lose you lose nothing. Do not hesitate, then, to wager that he is.Blaise Pascal French mathematician, physicist (1623 - 1662) quote:Originally posted by Prez: Essentially, when science disproves something religions have come to accept as dogma, it does not invalidate that religion in my view, but only serves as testimony to the woefully inadequate understanding we humans have of the divine. I wish your thinking was in the majority.

Hence why I said that the a goverment shouldn't do that indefinitely for people who choose not work when they are able to. And I missed the last part of Soback's post that answered my question. And in any event, the goverment would need large amounts of downsizing if that was true.

quote:Originally posted by Prez: Not if all the citizens around are also armed, and therefore ready to provide the cops with the necessary back-up! Unfortunatly that would require that most people are willing to help in such cicumstances instead of "looking the other way". Sadly studies have backed up that people tend to do the latter.

quote:Originally posted by Prez: 2) It victimizes society's hardest workers and biggest contributers, discouraging further success by stifling the value that hard work normally yields without the arbitrary robin hood concept of stealing from the "rich" and giving to the "poor". People seem to like assuming that socialism requires tax percentage to increase with income bracket. Which it doesn't. Soback: If a goverment helps a person who "fell on hard times" by giving them education and nessities for a relatively short amount of time, then the person can(if they choose) become a productive member of sociaty, which could mean they end up injecting more cash into the system then they used. Unfortunatly, most(all?) goverments don't seem to like that idea. What is the goverment's job then?

I'm 99% certain someone was killed for his findings, I just can't for the life of me remember his name.

You are of course assuming that all laws that go into effect are thought out logically and that none are knee jerk reactions.