I would also say that the Senate is currently unfairly biased toward rural America, as less populace = greater direct representation.
The Senate was intended to be structurally biased towards minorities (rural pops), whereas the House was conversely created to be the voice of the majority and urban populations.
They believe in Karma and Darma, though, which I don't believe in (since it insights that we're being watched or something).
I think they look at Dharma more as a natural force than an entity.
most people who are very religious (that i meet at least) are very happy...
I'm just nitpicking, but how do you know? I live in San Antonio, so nearly everyone's Catholic. The highly religious ones here give off very happy vibes, but knowing some of them shows that they're generally the exact opposite. I think the rules of religion are inherently suppressive of human nature, so the ones who are truly happy might be the aberrant ones.
This is an agnostic speaking out his ass, mind you. But does your experience match mine?
The best thing about the Truths and Path is that you don't need to be a Buddhist to believe in them. They are generally good rules for living, without overstepping the boundaries of what a religion should do. Also, Buddhism is one of the only religions whose policy is to defer to science in event of conflict. That's badass :]
EDIT: Also like the Samsaric realms. Very elucidating to contemplate which realm you might be in.
I'm inclined to fall on this side:
We have found a gay gene. Call it a defect if you want, but in an overpopulated world it is an altruistic adaptation.
We have not found a gay environmental factor. It shows up in every single population, and in animals.
[I almost typed fagtor.]
It's funny, this argument has +2 votes, but your argument on the other side,
Here's the problem with environmental factors:
1. Homosexuality is a chosen life style, a perversion that must be countered.
Has -2 votes.
CreateDebate advocates the Final Solution :P
Anyway, the problem isn't the definition here, as apparently confusing as it is, the problem is that people have been living in a bubble of fear with terrorist alerts, terrorist this, terrorist that, people forget that most of the terrorist violence is home grown, right here in the U.S. And that terrorism is not just arabs from another country, and it's not just murder on a massive scale. When we first started this "war on terror" people said "wait though, how are we defining terror..."
Did anyone listen? God no, too busy being cowboys or whatever, now no one remembers what the fuck it is.
They should call this the Brown Scare.
Dude, you're so full of shit. She took that cross to a protest against Proposition 8, in order to antagonize CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS. Your poorly concealed bigotry has showed up again and again on this site, and it's really disgusting to think people are reading what you write without knowing about your ethical blinders.
No, he's doing it because he's a comedian and she's a public figure. You just think it's about politics because you're a conservative, and he's a liberal.
Basically, it's lazy comedy. You make a joke that would be funny either way, but to make it seem pertinent you tack on the name of a public figure. Who else can you tack on for an underage wedlock baby?
Anyone see Threads? It's a BBC docudrama, available on Google video, about the real projections of nuclear war on Britain. I believe Kuklapolitan suggested it, and it's affected me as much as any movie I've seen. If we want to get along better when my generation is running the planet, we need to be sickened by atrocities, and this is a great way to ensure it.
To me, it seems the pattern of those against whom the label is applied depends on their resources. The use of terror sown from threat of demonstrated violence against a public is the same mechanism used in "terrorism" or "legitimate" invasion. The aim is to make the public fear violence so much it caves into political demands. Terrorism is more proportionately effective because it is random, and tends to target civilians; thus the bluff is larger, and the psychological effect on the target is greater.
But really, why attack civilians? In the case of Palestine and Israel, there is no contest. Israel wields the best-trained army on Earth against displaced populations who have no hope to muster enough resources to resist directly. The United States, similarly, has the best-funded army on Earth, and picks on third-world dictatorships in order to install its own puppets and resource chokeholds. But both sides attack military and civilians indiscriminately.
The only difference between the sides, if you remove the question of who's right or wrong-- that argument will last forever-- is that one side does not have the resources to fight directly, but it does have the motivation to fight. And guess what? Apparently it's working. Go find the total costs of the war on terror, per enemy combatant neutralized. These disorganized, under-equipped people are managing to bleed us dry, and express unsurprised satisfaction at our new economic situation.
Remember that these are people on both sides of the conflict. They are not action-movie henchmen. It is a sad product of journalistic necessity and simple pragmatism that we count our own dead in names, and the dead of the enemy in numbers. There's no way around that, but the overall effect of the domestic side of a foreign war is that our enemy is completely dehumanized. We don't have refugees pouring over our borders, unlike the neighbors of our enemies.
Imagine what kind of circumstances would motivate your next-door neighbor to become a suicide bomber? Yes, radicalized brainwashing is a large part of it-- but ask yourself if we don't seem exactly the same way to outsiders. While one side uses religious fanaticism, the other uses narrow-minded jingoism.
I know this is a pretty disorganized rant, and I kind of digressed. But basically terrorists are people driven to the same degree we are-- we're spreading democracy, they're fighting imperialism-- but without the resources to enact them in a militarily "legitimate" way.
I haven't even mentioned how the word is starting to get thrown around like "communist" used to. If you have any historical perspective on that, brace yourself.
If that's what you call "punishment," then perhaps punishment is the right thing to do.
The rich will generally not spend money for philanthropic ends. They do it for tax breaks. They have more tools available to conceal a lot of their income, and so they often end up paying far less than they should.
No, we shouldn't only tax them. But inheritance taxes are a just idea.
life begins at conception. At this point, the zygote, still a single cell, has the same number of chromosomes as a developed human being and carries on the same life processes found in every living organism.
Not all living things have chromosomes. It's really a gray area as to when life begins, so it occurs to me that that distinction is simply a red herring-- it's been made the main issue because it's impossible to place for certain, in order to suspend a groundless argument. The real consideration, IMO, is when the fetus begins to feel pain. If I'm remembering correctly, that's the third trimester.
And with the advent of DNA technology, the number of people wrongfully accused of a crime has dwindled. There will never be a foolproof justice system, but we are closer than we ever have been.
While that's partly true, read up on the statistics: given conflicting DNA and eyewitness evidence, juries will usually believe the witness. Witnesses are extremely specious.
I think if you compare Iraq now to how it was in 2001, the nation is much better off.
Why don't we ask Iraqis? "of 600 Iraqi citizens randomly selected and surveyed in Baghdad, 63% of them report losing one or more family members to military attacks since the invasion, and more than half of these casualties were civilian. The survey also indicates that approximately 40% of all Iraqi children under age 10 lost one or more parents. 1 out of every five Iraqi children under age 10 were orphaned by the war and/or subsequent occupation. In a country of 25 million people, 45,000 civilian casualties have been documented by project Iraq Body Count, but both the Red Crescent and the Arab League believe the John Hopkins University/Lancet report of 600,000 deaths is "far more realistic". In his 27 year reign, Saddam Hussein is alleged to have killed 100,000 Iraqis. Why coalition soldiers are instructed not to conduct body counts remains an unanswered question. "To date, we can extrapolate that between 5,000 and 8,000 Iraqi children have been killed by military actions since 1991"
"Suggests that 'the overall mood in Iraq is as negative as it has been since the US-led invasion in 2003'. Only 29% think things will get better in the next year, compared to 64% two years ago. Nearly 60% see attacks on US-led forces as justified. This rises to 93% among Sunni Muslims compared to 50% for Shia. Growing disparity between Shia and Sunni satisfaction levels."
Although I would guess you don't understand the power dynamics of Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims in Iraq, do you MK?
These aren't crazed "insurgents." They're people reacting to an invasion. Dictator or no, it was unjustified.
They no longer live under an evil dictator, they finally have freedom and democratic elections (government of the people!), and the economy there is improving to stability. So we have done a lot of good there.
Who is running these elections? Who benefits most? How much money and power stands to be gained by putting on a facade of legitimacy?
95 per cent of respondents believe the security situation has deteriorated since the arrival of US forces
Nearly 66 per cent of respondents thought violence would decrease if US forces were to leave
Thirty-eight per cent were also "unconfident" that Nuri al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister, would be able to improve the situation in Iraq and nearly 90 per cent described the government's implementation of its commitments and promises as very poor
36.5 per cent said they felt the official security forces were unable to keep control in the country
Why do I bother arguing? Thoughtcrime is death.
http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55
http://www.prlog.org/
The death penalty is a bad idea for practical reasons:
You forgot how it doesn't deter crime, its only legitimate purpose.
over one million dead Iraqis.
Americans never seem to care about that figure, only about their own dead. It's pretty disgusting, and very telling about our national character.
what we're doing is punishing success and rewarding failure. that is what welfare is. progressive taxing is punishing success, but at least it doesn't reward failure.
That's assuming all money is self-made (which I know you're not saying), and ignoring the fact that the best way to make money is to already have it.
Avarice and usury and precaution must be our gods for a little longer still. For only they can lead us out of the tunnel of economic necessity into daylight.
Every once in a while you find a quotation that says the same things you want to say, but in a better way than you could ever find. Thanks for posting this. :)
