How will students learn about Evolution and theories on the origin of life?
despite it's controversy, evolution is still the closest to accurate theory on life.
And what creates the truly smart children is the ability and passion to debate such issues. Religious fanatics shouldn't be suing teachers just because they say that Evolution is a valid theory. As long as they don't say that God doesn't exist or shit like that.
I don't think libertarianism is the best mentality. only in certain situations. economically, I'm more of a Corporate Capitalist (which is definitely not Libertarian).
and even so, presenting what a random economist had to say doesn't do much.
i actually agree that middle class deserve more tax cuts than the higher class, but this is because I want more spending for the things Reagan actually DID spend taxes on. I just want to spend even more on it. So that money has to come from the rich. but to improve the economy, the Middle Class need more tax breaks.
In order to have a good credit America has to have a certain amount of debt. I don't know enough about Reagan's spending, though, in order to know if he did it efficiently, though. But debt is good.
But, less government spending is usually good (although, I believe in big government spending for science, education and military).
O RLY? an economist said something about how tax cuts are bad?
let me mention another economist who says that not only are tax cuts good, but Laissez Faire capitalism is the best. In fact, he's one of the most prestige and well known economists of all time. Adam Smith.
Paul Krugman is openly liberal and believes that liberal mentality is the only right mentality. Think of Rush Limbaugh, but as a liberal... you'd get Paul Krugman (with a radio show).
I don't mind what you have to say (slam Reaganomics) but the way you did it was kind of... eh. Like I said, economists all have different views on the economy. We should look more to experience. Reagan's era was a great one for the market. It's possible that he just got lucky, and anyone can argue that forever, but to say that certain economists are against tax cuts makes Reaganomics wrong just kind of ruins the whole debate.
actually, the argument came from scientists with PhDs and Nobel Prizes. And a shit load of them as well.
I know, I don't have the list. Sparsely had it, and I guess I should have bookmarked it, but I didn't...
So i'm left at your mercy to remember Sparsely's post from a long time ago.
no, majority of people are that fuckin' stupid.
at least in politics, politicians are stupid, yes, but they also no the importance of leadership and the POSSIBLE greater good. They know how to analyze their surroundings and use it correctly.
People, in general, or ideological morons. I know, it pains me to admit that people like Obama are not ideologues. On the other hand, those who don't like to play the game (Nader) are ideologues... but luckily they don't get voted in.
Actually, those who win do it from getting the audience (voters) on their side. Plato pointed this problem out. That the people vote for the candidate who they just "like" more (Obama) and not for the more qualified person (McCain).
Hell, even Hitler (the most brilliant politician until Obama) stressed the importance of speech giving and personality. It doesn't matter if you want to extend socialism (Universal Healthcare) while still saying that you believe in private property. As long as you can Doublthink the shit out of your audience.
Also, there's the fact that everyone hated Bush and was definitely not going to vote Republican. So no matter how good McCain could possibly be, it was a given to Obama.
That is how elections work.
But, is Obama that bad? Not really. And neither are any presidents. We see that not EVERYONE can be Reagan, Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt, and most people would have made the same decision as the other president. In the presidency, you learn a lot of new things. This is why Obama no longer wants to pull out of Iraq just yet. He sees what Bush saw, and it's a real cluster fuck.
With a lottery, we're stuck with people who are TRUE ideologues and they'll live by their promise no matter what. Someone who actually would pull out of Iraq and fuck everything up for the military.
Yes, Obama has done some things like restrict tobacco, close Gitmo, and been apathetic to the situation in Iran, but these are little things compared to the bigger picture. In that, the bigger picture will almost be ALWAYS the same.
The Earth has gone through stages of hot and cold for billions of years now, I don't think the dawn of factories is really what's causing Global Warming. The most close to home hypothesis is that we MIGHT be speeding it up by a few years.
Now, if we are able to CUT DOWN (because we can never eliminate most carbon emissions) it still won't change the fact that most of it will be coming from other nations. So... we won't make a difference, and our lives will be much more inconvenient (refer to descriptions in article).
I do believe in alternative energy mainly because we do need to become independent. But regulating our lives for something that won't do shit is ridiculous and Authoritarian.
Paine was a deist, but he did use Christian propaganda (so did Hitler).
There's no point in having an official language in a FREE country. I think we have to start remembering that America is different from all the other countries. We shouldn't have a structure like everyone else. We're supposed to be rebellious and have limited government. It's what America was born to be. Not just another country with a "pride" in it's culture or religion. We should be proud to JUST be America. We should be proud to be free.
Yeah, there was the whole thing about him molesting children, and that will always be remembered. But when it comes to Michael Jackson, I think his music will be even more remembered.
Really, the HIStory and Thriller albums were awesome as fuck and he truly was the King of Pop.
You know, when Fera Faucett died she went to heaven and God asked her what she wanted. She said for all the children to be safe.
So God killed Michael Jackson.
Than that is wrong. Especially since PBS is now banning anything religious from their programming. Just shows exactly what their bias is. I mean, I don't care, because I don't watch PBS, but why is my money going to them, then?
It's bad either way.
And I am, in fact, against the FCC. It's against the first amendment.
1. The point is that once we start funding it won't stop for quite some time. It's either corrupt or a waste of money.
2. Fox News still has plenty of regular reporting, though. And in the middle of all of those debates you see, there is regular unbiased reporting.
Because of Fox News's ability to gather so many people, they also get people into regular news.
You have to understand the Geographical opportunities Iraq has given us against Iran.
I understand where you're coming from, but hear me out, friend.
We have Iran in a military choke hold. The Sunni and Shiite issue could have gone many different ways, but it in no way would have given us an advantage for very long. No matter what, radicals dominated the Middle East. I see what you mean by them having the problems with each other, but they still had problems with us and Israel. No one knows how it all could have played out. It could have been very likely that they would find us as a mutual fiend, or one would succeed and then press on towards us. With our control of both Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran is surrounded and stands no chance to spread any power or his forces. The gun is loaded and well aimed, all we have to do is pull the trigger.
Iraq could have been handled differently, I understand, but what I was talking about was that we should try and look at what we CAN do with the current situation instead of trying to force this idea that all is lost and we have failed. I did it and many other strategists have. Militarily, we have a major advantage. All we need is for Israel to strike first (which they've been wanting to do for so long) and hopefully we'll follow them in. With two great military forces against Iran along with allies already fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's not too unrealistic to presume that our allies will fight in Iran as well. It is the same war.
1. Independent watchdogs that no one listens to? Most people become apathetic to things like this.
2. Greed creates an incentive to tell people what they want and NEED to hear. This is how editorials and columns came to life in the first place. People wanted heated debates on issues, not just reporting on the issue.
as for your Fox analogy, i don't really want this to become another debate on Fox News, but Fox makes its money by appealing to most Americans. MSNBC and CNN have pundits and debates as well, but Fox seems to portray points of views in ways that Americans want it more... since Obama won by a land slide, the majority of the country is obviously not Right Wing... so i wonder why the majority of the country still watches Fox News, since it's supposedly so Right Wing.
hmm.
the fact is, Fox News cares much more about money than it does about ideology. This is why New York Post is better than the New York Times and why Fox News beats the other Cable News combined. MSNBC is just a cest pool of Conservative bashing and CNN always has their reporters give opinions during reports. Fox News separates the reporting from the punditry between their journalists. the people have spoken.
Hopefully Israel will finally get involved.
Militarily, it would be great for us to take over Iran. Iran, Afghanistan, and Iraq are the three headed dragon of the Middle East. If we end the regime in Iran, we would have complete control of the Middle East, making this fight against Insurgents, the Taliban and most importantly, al-Qaeda, much much easier.
But the invasion of Iraq (which gave us a great advantage over Iran in the first place) has left America in turmoil. The War itself isn't the problem, it's the people who oppose it so much that they fail to see the military advantage we have right now. Yes, looking back there are other ways we could have handled Iraq, but looking at the present we see our opportunity and the people are too afraid to take it.
I can only hope for strong encouragement from military Generals and strategists on Obama. Especially if Israel makes the initial attacks, it might be easier to get America and everyone else on board.
If there is no government involvement, how do we know that there is no possible bias? It's not a computer running the system, it's people, and people tend to not just follow the chain that they're supposed to follow.
Greed takes away the want for ideological bias. If someone isn't making anymore or any less money, it's actually EASIER for them to become bias.
the FREE press has worked for us just fine.
To me it's gonna be terrorism for a while. It seems that when we were afraid of Communism that's when we were the most safe and most happy (Eisenhower, Reagan, JFK).
Maybe if we defeat al-Qaeda and just be afraid of Russia again, we would be able to worry more about internal issues.
The problem with this is that it's not very likely that we could just be "responsible" about the government running the media because civilians (those effected by what's put on the media) have no idea what the government is doing. It's very easy to be corrupt, and I wouldn't be surprised if many of the stories on the BBC were altered.
It's not good to give the government this much power. America was created for the exact opposite.
This just makes it easier to have a corrupt media. People used to joke about Fox News being controlled by the White House, and now people joke about how MSNBC and CNN are controlled by the White House. The fact was, they were controlled by CEOs.
With a system like this, all the news truly is controlled by the government. Say what you want about who's running it, the government still decides on who SHOULD run it. This is exactly apart of the Totalitarian regime that anti-Communists and anti-Fascists fear.
Control the Media.
Control the Churches (or even better, destroy them).
Take away any means to fight back.
Control the Family (so that children get raised to love the government more than their parents).
Control all business.
Control events in the past and present.
So far America has been keen to try and prevent these, so lets keep it that way.
and eventually, control our thoughts.
1. Bush has responded recently in defense of his policies. Not an attack, just a defense from Obama's constant blaming of Bush in the past 5 months. The fact is, though, that he hasn't been attacking Obama on what he's doing. Cheney is, but he's a VP... so who cares? Plus, Cheney has been talking about "cereal" issues such as defense...
2. He talks about issues in the world. Entertainment happens to be a part of it. He even says "i don't really care about this, but the people seem to love this". Keep in mind, Fox News cares more about ratings than ideology (which is what has made them so successful).
3. If we enforce the system on how it should be we won't lose troops. We can't just go to the other extreme. Don't Ask Don't Tell was made as a middle ground to the issue of gays in the military. "Don't be a flamer and we won't bother you about it". There are people taking advantage of the system, and they must be held accountable.
4. Hatred towards anyone is common in the world. That's all human beings do. They always want to hate someone. Hell, I hate attention whores. This little bitch in the boy scouts is one of them.
5. yeah, the hysteria is ridiculous. I'm not going to get into a debate on the complexity of climate change, but the hype that has been put into it is almost like a new religion.
