uh... minumum wage is like 5.15/ hr, my turtles couldn't live on that.

Any company that cannot afford to pay its employees at least that, is doing something terribly wrong, and shouldn't be able to survive as a business anyway.

Not to mention people need to have money to spend money, I like how the same people that are for like no taxes ever because the consumer needs more money, are also for the consumer not being paid any money. I smell hypocrisy.

You liberals? I seem to remember everyone enjoying affordable housing. And the housing bubble didn't burst until well after Clinton's watch, like 6 years after, so I'm not sure what your point is... other than spewing your selective memory over the internet.

lol, listen, you have me banging my head against the wall now... I might as well be talking to the wall I think.

again, you took a snipet of what I said and are vainly trying to throw it back at me.

The only thing I can surmise from this new arguement of yours is that you accept my point as valid. Since my point was refuting a point of yours, I guess I win.

Now on to the arguement which I'm guessing you have now shifted to "there must be another way" which by the way was not your original point, but whatever, since you've so graceously accepted that I am right and you are wrong I will humor you.

No one is suggesting we "soak" the rich, infact getting wet has nothing to do with it. The only suggestion is returning to a previous tax code under which there was much more prosperity for rich and poor alike. Now if you have a better suggestion... I'm actually not interested because as I've said you bore me jafl, but I'm sure someone somewhere will listen, why not start a whole new debate?

First of all I would argue that slavery, infecting indians with small pox, and putting people with AIDS in concentration camps all had and would have much better options available from both an economic and humane standpoint, but that aside,

I hardly think any of those examples are a comparable to say returning to the the tax codes of the 90's, which would mean a 3% tax increase for those making over 250,000 a year.

Like if I were doing what you've been doing in your last couple replies I could take a point you said... The standard explanation for supply-siders is that cutting taxes for the rich will give the rich more money to invest in things like factories and stores which create jobs that help the economy in the long run.

And I would reply with something like:

Oh yeah! Well then like why not just give rich people all the money huh? I mean, that would make a bunch of jobs wouldn't it! (insert sarcasm)

That's basically what your arguement amounts to.

So you see why I said I'm bored with arguing with you and I don't want to do it anymore? I replied to you in another debate somewhere, find that one if you still want to argue with me, I'm done with this one.

I mean really? You're gonna compare my statement to Slavery?

Since when is it fair to tax someone just because they have more that can be taxed?

Where did I say anything about fair? I'm talking about what works.

People build factories as an investment in hopes of making a profit in the future. They don’t always wait for consumer demand to develop.

Then again, why didn't the Bush tax cut work?

You mean solution and your general level of ignorance is showing- or either you are foaming at the mouth to the point that you cannot talk.

Hm, now you're just getting boring. I've given you plenty of real world examples of why Reaganomics does not work, during the Reagan years, and the Bush years.

I assure you I'm not foaming at the mouth, and while I'm certainly not an expert in the subject, apparently I know much more about it than you do.

I see for example you quote me where I say that GDP is not the only indicator of national prosperity. Then you ask me what else is. Well, unemployment, mean income, standard of living to name a few. But that quote was part of a larger point, the point being China has the second highest GDP.

All of my points you refuse to answer, you simply take out a snipet, then ask me another question that would be easy enough for anyone to figure out. So I'm done debating this topic with you. Anyone who seriously thinks Reaganomics still works isn't really worth debating much anyway.

But if you do have another laundry list of lame points, you simply have to look at my above arguement, and I'm sure the come back is there somewhere since you at this point seem to be simply rehashing tired old arguements.

1. Reagan did an across the board tax cut, but it was a percentage across the board tax cut, so to say it was equal is incorrect. ie 3% of 1,000,000 is a good chunk of change, but 3% of 30,000 is like groceries for a week. So yeah, it was geared toward the rich. The middle class and lower economic classes did not see any significant benefit, nor did the economy due to their increased spending, little as it was.

2. Yes, building factories etc is the standard explanation. But that's not how it works. People build factories when and only when there is demand. Demand comes from the middle classes unless you're selling high-end stuff. The rich do not use a tax cut during a recession or depression to blindly start hiring people and building stuff. "Build it and they will come" only works if you're Kevin Costner and in a movie. So Reaganomics cannot work if one just puts a little thought into it, and if one does not bother to think, we can see clearly how it failed miserably when Bush used that template for his tax cuts.

I say that Republicans are trying to rewrite history, because that is precisely what they are doing. They are trying to say again that Reaganomics is somehow the solvent for our problems, when the real answer is the opposite of what they want, tighter regulations, investing in large State and National projects that employ large numbers of people, and a return to the tax codes of the 90s or something similar.

3. GDP is only one indicator of a nations prosperity. China has the second largest GDP after us, I don't think anyone would argue their citizens are well off by any stretch of the imagination.

During the Reagan years we still had a huge national defecit, Reagan "warned" that the national debt our country had accumulated in the 200 years of its existance was approaching 1 trillion... and when he left office in only 8 years it was 2.9 trillion, hm...

Clinton has been the only one in recent history to erase that defecit without a world war, and he did so with what would be almost the exact opposite of what Reagan did.

By Reagan's second year, unemployment reached 10.8%. That was the highest since the great depression, and higher than now. And Republicans blamed Carter for this... that's two years into his presidency, meanwhile they are already trying to shift blame to Obama for this depression.

Again, rewritting history.

On top of that, the Reagan administration used funny math to pad the poor scores.

Things like not counting unemployed people as unemployed after 6 mo. to make the numbers look better.

One of Bush Sr.'s admonishments of the Reagan era was no more funny math, Republicans ate it up,

but again, short memories and they love rewriting history. And of course that funny math remains in government even today.

And finally, are you kidding me? You're actually going to try to credit the House and Senate with anything as far as the economy is concerned during the 90s? The fact is, after fighting those Republicans tooth and nail on nearly every budget issue, it was Clinton who ended up getting his way in the end, at least part of what he wanted, on nearly everything.

Now you want to give the credit for the resulting benefits of those budget decisions to the very people who fought against them?

Jeez, I almost prefer arguing with the plain dumb Conservatives as opposed to the slick slightly informed ones.

Unless they don't spend the money because the majority of the tax cuts are given to the people who don't need to spend it, like what happened with the Bush tax cuts remember, and actually the Reagan ones as well because

1. Reaganomics didn't work no matter how hard you Conservatives keep trying to rewrite history.

2. the minimal "prosperity" you conservatives look back on through rosey glasses actually wasn't all that prosperous.

The longest and strongest stretch of economic expansion happened while Clinton was in office. And as a result of a combination of a bunch of things.

But if you were going to blame a president for an economy, which they do play a hand in, I think Clinton should be the one to emulate.

I mean, why did Conservatives try to distract everyone with the sex stuff? Because his policies worked so damn well that's all they had left.

Well, what's overlooked by a lot of people, the idea behind a representative democracy was that the poor people who make like 90% of our food would have little representation, that rural areas would often be overlooked.

However today, there really is no such thing as a "rural" area. Sure there's poor areas that don't have a lot of communications, but you can find them in the middle of a city just as easy as the hills of Virginia.

So that model I don't believe is relevant any longer.

I would also say that the Senate is currently unfairly biased toward rural America, as less populace = greater direct representation.

I guess that's not so much the point of this though.

I think that the time has definitely come though to do away with hanging chads, and adopt a system of direct representation using technology.

Ironically, if it weren't for the hanging chads, we may have it today :(

Seriously, you have to let this point go jake, the facts are stacked so heavily against even the idea of a multicultural State somehow not being able to survive that it boggles the mind.

Not to mention it's impossible anyway. Every nation, no matter how crappy, has always and will always have multiple cultures, you can embrace it, or become a raving looney like that old man.

Really think about it, name one place that only has one culture... there is none. Ruwanda, who the hell would even want to live there, and they have multiple cultures. Of course they take the road of blaming the minority cultures for their problems and you know, do some "ethnic cleansing" every now and then, yet still there are multiple cultures.

Not to say that this guy is suggesting ethnic cleansing (laughs nervously because any old guy who dresses like it's halloween and would put out a video like this privately might not be against it.)

Well, that guy is not the silent majority, he's the loud minority. And all of our leaders were voted in with a majority, this isn't Iran. And from my perspective it seems this guy is the one who is "uneducated and indoctrinated." Seriously, he sounds like a complete idiot.

And you should watch the "Color of Fear" whether you want to or not. It's a great documentary, and I think only like 40 minutes. It's probably not whatever you think it is anyway. And some Universities require it, so you might be giving yourself a head start.

lmao,

You should watch "the color of fear" this reminds me of the lady who "loves Indians, I collect their artifacts."

At any rate, there's a very good reason we don't want a national language. And the majority has stated very clearly who should be in power right now, and the majority won, so calm down with this revolution bullshit.

For his music eventually. The guy could sing. I liked the Jackson 5 stuff much better than the pop stuff though. Pop rarely survives, but I think a lot of the music from his younger days are pretty classical and can bridge the time gap.

911 was 7 years ago... while your boy was in office (and who consequently received a memo from Clinton warning of a possible strike from Osama, which your boy ignored.)

I'd rather be safe like we were for the 8 years before the last 8 years, you know, when we had a president who knew what the hell he was doing.

Wow are you misinformed. Iraq and Iran balanced out eachother's power, one being run by Sunni the other Shiite. Now Shiites are in power in both countries and they can quit worrying about eachother and concentrate on Israel and the West. There is no advantage to invading Iraq, even Conservatives (mostly) grudgingly agree it was only worth doing if they actually had had WMDs... which of course we know now the Bush admin even knew they didn't.

Not to mention it went from a country where the Taliban was not allowed, to a recruiting mecca.

So let me get this straight, in the world you live in, it's people who are against the war's fault that it's a collosal waiste of time, life, and resources? So if we all just pretend with you that it's a great idea everything will be okay?

Must be nice to live in that world, unicorns magic rainbows and all...

The title assumes that murder is wrong, which it is not.

As said by I don't know how many, the example of a predator killing a weeker animal is not immoral, because the predator has no capacity for empathy.

Problem is, we do. So what do we do about it?

Right now what we do is ignore it, and say it's okay because we're the predator and we observe in nature that this is what predators do.

I would argue that we should try to hold ourselves to a higher standard than this.

Does it really matter if we do?

Probably not, but that does not mean that we should not at least try to kill the food we eat with as little pain as possibe, and it also does not mean we should not attempt to allow our prey to live in comfort for whatever amount of time we give them here.

However, saying that, it is important that we as humans understand that other humans are more important than animals.

I love my tortoises. But if a human being is starving, and in some post-apocolyptic world there is no other means of sustanance, guess what, my great little toroises have to die.

This is where the far left occassionally takes it too far. Humans are more important than animals. End of story.

At the other end though. Just because we can kill whatever we want without penalty, and just because we sometimes do kill whatever we want, does not make it morally okay.

There has to be a level of understanding of what it means to be human and have self-awareness, I find many on both sides lack this completely, making me wonder if we really aren't just "predators" who by coincidence have extra large brains.

I see. That makes sense.

But surely there are some branches that are religious?

My only interaction was with one of those monks at an airport during a layover, really cool guy, but the book he gave me was literally full of deities which I assumed meant it was religious on some level.

Well, if anyone was saying that it was okay to make jokes about underage girls being raped... okay.

But again, as Letterman made clear, and whether it could have been interpreted wrong or not, the point of the joke was not "rape" or "underage"

it was "sex" and "of age"

While I realize that as soon as people accept this fact, the Palin's will once again be out of the spotlight, and so want to desperately hold on to the delusion that he was making an underage rape joke,

I think it's pretty clear from both his statement which followed only 3 hours after the complaint (not a day or days as Sara is claiming) and that anyone who has ever seen Letterman knows he has not made a joke about raping underage girls once for however many years he's been on tv, kind of all points to the situation you seem to be describing as a very different thing all together.

I would point out as well, that while Palin was dragging her children all over the country with her during the campaign, the Obama's purposefully kept their kids out of the spotlight until he was elected. I mean, if she didn't want her kids to be part of her pop-stardom, why take them with you?

That aside though, again, you are comparing a sexually active woman who is over the age of 18, and trying to say it's now okay to make the same joke about kids who I don't even think are 10 yet...

Inspired by the "What's with all the right wing extremism" debate.

Nice try though.

Well, the people in ACORN that I met during the last election all had jobs and families and were pretty damn cool actually.

But as with anything I'm sure there are elements here and there that are not all above-board.

But I believe the registering of the dead and other things of that nature have been greatly exagerated. And it's not as if you guys don't do the exact same thing here and there. Visit Dwight IL if you're ever around Chicago, and ask those backwood farmers how many times they voted for Republicans each. They literally used to brag to my parents because they were pretty much the only liberals in town and I would overhear something like this, "Well now (spit tobacco) I dun gone done an' voted once in X county, then we's took a trip and voted in Y county, then we went on up North over there to Z county... cuz dem liberaaals is tryin' to take me guns (spits tobacco)"

And that's like half those imbred retards doing this like every election.

So if anything, it probably evens out.

But it's 2009, we need to figure out some way to stop voter fraud by now I think.

I always liked Buddhism because they approach is from a position of 1. not trying to force or guilt others into it, instead they simply live their lives. 2. they stay out of politics, which is kind of an extension of the whole live and let live credo.

As for the 4 noble truths, they're awsome. A "religion" that actual is based on inherent facts of human life and nature is fantastic, as opposed to the obvious and inherent fallacy of every other religion.

However, outside of these, and what everyone knows about Buddhism, I have no idea how their deity system works, and I am generally opposed to any deity anyway.

That said though, again you don't have to believe in Krsna, Budha, etc. in order to really get something out of Buddhism.

Buddhism = calm, interspective, peaceful

Christianity, Judaism, Muslim, Mormon, Protestant, Catholic, etc. = inner turmoil, self-hate through self guilt, fear of death, fear of afterlife, pressure to conform

Yeah, if I ever decide I need to make believe in a religion, Buddhism is definitely the route to take.

interesting response.

I pasted the definition of what terrorism is from a dictionary, then I described why Tillerman's murder is terrorism.

Are you upset by the definition? Or by me pointing out that the right wing is trying to pretend it's not an act of terrorism because they pander to the religious base?

Why is it so hard for people to just say "yes, that is an act of terrorism?"

Why do you feel it's necessary to throw in gay rights activitists?

Very revealing.

The made up situation of the gay guy grabbing some innocent persnon's cross and stomping it or whatever (is that what you think goes on? I have yet to hear of one gay protest or pride event getting violent.) If that were to happen, then if it were part of an organized political movement to strike fear into the hearts of cross carrying people, then yeah, it would be a terrorist act. Why is this confusing?

The animals rights people who throw blood or paint or whatever are participating in terrorist acts. They shouldn't do that... and I would mention that is not nearly as bad as killing someone, but whatever, that's not the point. I have no problem labeling eco terrorism when it happens, and saying it's wrong... so why then is it so, soooooooo hard for you guys when it's the other way around? Again, very revealing.

And the situation of a father telling someone about to rape his daughter he's going to kill them, I fail to see how that fits in my definition, the father is not part of an organization, there's no pre-meditaion, there's no political goal, and it's self-defense.

I realize the weekness of your arguement was forcing you to make stuff up, but you could come up with something better than that I think.

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.

And this has nothing to do with being PC. PC has to do with speach, nudity, and other things where no one is hurt. Unless you believe no one was hurt in the Tillerman murder, there is no connection.

And yes, the right wing, and anyone pretending that it was not a terrorist act are either being hypocrites, or just very very dumb.

Promote and encourage people's legal right to vote?

how dare they...

I love that he said "knocked up," which is not "rape," and was refering to the daughter who is legally of age, and obviously sexually active...

And the father, who happens to be from the backwoods of Alaska, automatically assumes he talking about raping an underage family member.

wonder where his head is at...

that's really the funniest part of the whole thing.

But pc is out of control, he's a comedian, he wasn't advocating anything illegal, the Palins know this, they just want back in the spotlight.

Well, thousands of teenage girls don't have a mother who is against sex-ed, against condoms, and against pre-marital sex,

who is also governor of the state.

I realize you have trouble seeing hypocricy when it's your home team, but surely you have to see the humor in that situation...

As is normal for pro-lifers, and by no means your fault because it is what is propogated in media and by word of mouth,

You misunderstand the situation when it comes to deformities in late term abortions.

You have to understand, that in the entire US, population something like half a billion, think about that number for a second, there are, sorry were, 3 late-term abortion doctors.

3.

Cases of downsyndrome, and other minor deformities or retardations do not make it to these doctors, it would be impossibe for them to make it to these doctors with the tens of thousands of minorly retarded or deformed humans born in this country on a daily basis.

These children are born, given life, and hopefully cared for, the ones you seem to think were being aborted. Doctors do not, and do not want to for the most part, perform late-term abortions in these cases.

In order for a deformity or retardation to be judged by these doctors to be morally just to abort, it has to be something like, and I'm getting the name wrong, but something like I think Manchester Disease... damn, can't think of the name, but it's a disease where literally the DNA is messed up, the child will be born if taken full term, but will die within an hour or so of birth, often the mother's life is in danger as well. Meanwhile in that hour, the child will be in tremendous and unrelievable pain. Doctors know they will be in pain, there will not be a moment of joy, and in their entire and short existance they will only know pain most cannot even imagine. They may literally have eyes on their feet, nothing will be right, but they're put together just well enough for the organs to support life for a very short time outside of the mother.

It's cruel cosmic joke that these things happen, but it's important to realize they do, and not turn a blind eye to these poor souls who are cursed in such a manner.

These diseases are common among victims of incest, not so much the general public,

but they do exist, and we have the moral obligation I think to save them from this miserable existance, and the mother of the child from potential death from complications.

These are the kind of deformities that make it to these "baby killers"

and not the kind you are thinking of.

I think one would have to be a real sadist, or just completely lacking common sense and empathy, to not realize that in these cases of deformity, abortion is the only moral option.

How can one let a living thing suffer like that? And how can one believe their god, whatever god they follow, would judge someone for taking such mercy?

No, the only explanation I can think of is that people are woefully misinformed about the individual circumstances that has lead these poor girls to these doctors, and it's important people learn so that hopefully more of these doctors are not killed.

It is very important first off, that life continue to evolve as it does on its own, through messy gene swapping complete with tiny mutations in DNA along the way.

But there is nothing inherent about cloning that would suggest nature would suddenly stop reproducing on its own at the same time.

Cloning is a wonderful way to feed the hungry, and to farm organs...

No, not like that galactica movie, where humans are killed for their organs,

I mean in a jar somewhere, a single organ that is a genetic match to your or my own organ, ensuring the organ is not rejected... organs have no self-awareness, so it's okay to do that, I know because a magic dude in the sky whispered it in my ear or something... Christians.

da, ah, AH! ooooh...

so close, then you had to pull out the magic dude in the sky arguement.

I mean really, it all sounded so good. Why ruin it with mysticism?

lol, okay good one...

or maybe I'm just such a non-conformist that I refuse to even conform to the non-confomity, forcing me to conform...

ah ha.

Terrorist

1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.

2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

If the goal is to change policy, or terrorize a group of people until they adhere to whatever, it's terrorism.

On the right they try to say the Tillerman murder was just that, murder.

It was not, he had a clear political goal, and was part of a group who had a political goal of stopping abortion.

This is clearly terrorism.

Anytime a group or individual uses fear for a purpose, even if they do not kill anyone, it is terrorism.

ie, picketing outside of an abortion clinic and saying you are against abortion is not terrorism, it is protest.

picketing outside of an abortion clinic, manhandling these poor girls who are having a hard enough time as it is, telling them you are going to kill them even if you don't, or just telling them they are going to some mythical place called hell in order to scare them into doing what you want,

this is terrorism.

And personally I'm against it.

So you're still trying to make the false connection between liberal and communist?

Bravo! I'm in awe of your blind pursuit of an impossible goal, if only you could channel that energy toward world peace, or a cure for cancer...

There is never anything to say. Death always comes too soon, on a grand scale, whether one dies at birth, or lives to some biblical age of hundreds of years, it's a blink of the eye, and all anyone ever has is the moment they are in right now.

Suicide leaves a hole that death in no other manner can. But you are right that little blame can be laid at anyone's feet for it, even the one who did it. And maybe that's why it hurts more, I don't know.

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

Ignoring who really said what and how they said it, and what that person's beliefs really were, I'll just get to the actual point of what is being propogated.

Religion makes everything lamer, and only through science is the impotance of our imagination, no matter how wild we believe it to be, shown.

Example:

Religion defined stars as floating beings, or holes in some imaginary bubble. Wow, that's original...

This is what science has shown stars to be link

I find religion simplifies everything it touches, from people, to nature, to the cosmos. It labels all things black and white, when really everything is some shade in between. It either villifies or worships. It pretends to know the answers when there are none, and where there are, it claims there is no proof unless it's written in their book - no matter which religion one chooses.

Religion throughout history has worked to separate, in waves it says you are for us or against us, in one point in history crucifying, then when human nature is repelled by such ignorance, it sits on the sidelines, pretending to accept - really though, it only serves to divide and conquer or only conquer. Meanwhile, as scientists are killed for telling the world the sun does not revolve around it, or burned for suggesting it's not mystisism but elements which are the structure of the universe - it is always putting us in our proper place here, tiny, insignificant, and alone.

That we should be ironically what religion has said, that we should be shepards. But not for some invisible absentee landlord, but for ourselves, because we are the only ones who can truly lead us to greener pastures.

Religion was a necessary evil for a base and stupid people who had just realized they existed, and therefore someday would not. But I think of it as training wheels, and if we want to get anywhere, eventually we will have to take them off.

By 18 any person can have acquired the knowledge and wisdom to make an informed decision.

Many haven't, but many in their 60's haven't either in my opinion, so where's the cut-off going to be?

I'm actually for a standardized basic intelligence test that would have nothing to do with age for the right to vote, but that's fantasy land as every side has their idiots they depend on for a vote.

When age becomes important for decision making I think is when there is a long term health concern above and beyond what a normal adult would face. The brain is not finished developing in most cases until around the mid-twenties, and so alcohol for example can have long-term and permanent effects that would not be present in an adult.

Then again though, how do you stop an 18 year old from drinking if they really want to?

Anyway, I think 18 is old enough to make an informed decision on issues... maybe even 17. That's the lowest I would go though, I've met very few 16 year olds who I wasn't almost positive were mentally retarded.

1:39 in

- The government proposes itself as the highest and only agency of justice in the land

- The government claims justification based on the SC.

- Thus the SC must be the highest and most moral contract in existence.

o Since it is the root of all other contracts enforced by the state.

- Thus the opposite of a SC must be unjust/immoral

- If A is just, anti-A must be unjust

LMAO, he’s using logic to try and prove a logical fallacy is true. No where does the Constitution claim it is perfect, in fact the authors knew it could not be. They said as much, and put in ways for people to change it when sections were no longer relevant.

Let me explain something, I know it’s fun to be all rebellious, and to take a little knowledge and try and support some oh so new and clever way to prove the inherent evils of the big bad government.

But what exactly would you or baldy from that video there propose? Would you really like anarchy? Would you like everything to be survival of the fittest? If I have a steak, and you and your child say are starving, do you think you could wrest that steak from my hands? What is to stop anyone from doing whatever they want with you or me if they are bigger or stronger? How will you survive?

Here's what happens in anarchy. It's brutal and bloody for awhile, then eventually people figure out they need rules to follow in order to survive.

Our Constitution is the rules we follow in order to survive. It's not perfect, but it's actually really really good all things considered.

I don't think it is generally that easy for straight guys to become gay.

This is all just my guess, I could be completely wrong,

but it seems like the percent of the gay prison population is inflated because you have straight people pretending to be gay for companionship or whatever as you said.

If that is the case, and it's not the case of people who really are gay simply having an excuse to act it out, which there is no reason to believe,

Then why would it be so easy to "turn" an otherwise straight person gay? Especially in light of the samples given daily by guys in bars across the world "if someone had a gun to your head, whose dick would you suck? X or Y"

Macho answer: "you better shoot me"

seems inconsistant.

I think that there's a couple factors

1. social. In the bar it's not okay to be gay, in the prison it has become okay.

2. the majority of prisoners have very low IQ's

On the second point, it's been shown that a person with a low IQ is easier to control, easier to manipulate, more likely to give in to immediate gratification.

On some level most people are a little gay, I don't believe it's a black and white issue, human sexuality is like a bell curve with branches and factors that are inumerable. A person closer to the apex of the curve, becomes more likely to participate in gay acts. Throw in the extreme circumstance of prison, a social attitude of complete acceptance coupled with the legitimate excuse of a need for companionship, one can see why an otherwise straight person would become gay for the time being.

And though I have not seen any studies, my guess would be the lower one's IQ, the further on the straight side of the curve they could be, and could still be manipulated to participate in gay prison relationships. As there are so many with low intelligence in prison, it kind of ads to the social acceptance, as even the straightest of people can be seen in gay relationships.

wow, he could have be talking to GWB.

But I do disagree with one point. Spending is the only way out of a recession, it's what got us out of the Great Depression, but it's important to spend on things that create jobs, not necessarily bailing out bad business.

"It wasn't me!"

No, I wouldn't say anything actually unless they brought it up.

Well sure Jake, some people work for the betterment of society.

But take away money, and see how many people want to do something to "better society."

And take away the money part of the equation, things like housing crisises and Bernie Madoffs don't exist, there's no reason to rip people off, and there's no way for money to influence policies in government.

But it just doesn't work. It has to be based on greed or people won't go along with it.

Of course some people volunteer their time, and are genuinely interested in the betterment of society, but even non-profits have a payroll. Non-profit just means the goal isn't making money, it's providing some service.

In Star Trek people don't work for money, they work for the betterment of society...

and only a society that works for the betterment of society and not for money will ever be all cool like that.

Money's just a necessary evil Jake, because people are still too dumb for the most part to do stuff for any other reason.

Instead of working hard to save money for college, the necessities should eventually be provided through technology, and people instead of having to work hard to go to college, can simply work hard in college. This equals smarter people who can make even better technology, or devote themselves to arts or whatever, instead of devoting themselves to flipping burgers. I realize even imagining a world where greed is not the cornerstone of society is akin to blasphemy in the church of capitalism, but eventually capitalism needs to be done away with... as the quote said, we just can't yet.

Our goal should be a society like Star Trek, where machines do all the crap work, and people do cool stuff like explore space.

Capitalism could never lead to this in a million years.

But we're still too dumb, greedy, base, and brutish to abondon the system yet

Right now it works well so long as it is ballanced with social programs and oversite.

Great quote.

yes,

not to mention the U.S. is both as well, and has been since it's inception.

But why remember police, firemen, military, social security, schools, and programs like FEMA when it does not help ones arguement?

very good xaeon.

Pure capitalism = monarchy eventually, as power consolidates itself by its nature, and nepitism is one of the most powerful human traits.

vegetables have no more or less life than that cluster of cells being aborted.

science determines the best it can when something has a life, why any abortion has to be performed before a certain point.

which I agree with completely by the way.

but if you think that something has a soul the second of conception, there obviously is zero way that we are ever going to agree on this.

I don't believe in a soul though, I think it's just a brain, and the brain isn't working at that point, so there is no self-awareness, kind of like a vegetable.

1. you completely missed the point.

2. you're wrong... that or even vegans are serial killers

I'm not a tree hugging pacifist,

I just realize it's a ridiculous waste of a vote to not choose one side or the other,

and since democrats allow discention within their ranks, and republicans will even demonize General Powell, it seems incredibly logical to ally myself with democrats.

You seem to be under the impression in the abortion part of the debate, that making it illegal would stop it.

Even if one does for some reason believe that life begins upon conception (they would be wrong)

even then, making it illegal would not stop a single one. Abortions have been going on since before recorded history. Before it could be done in a safe and starile environment, it was done in basements.

You would revert to this brutal time in history, even knowing no lives would be saved, even knowing several more mothers would die,

all on the basis of some imagined moral ground?

The debate is about logic, not emotional self-righteousness,

which is why democrats will continue to win these kinds of debates.

Very good jessald, you saved me a lot of time.

I would have added in the Iraq part of the debate, that Saddam hated Al-Queda, and would never had allowed them to take a foot hold there, now it's their recruiting hot spot. I don't think we'll fully appreciate the irony of that for a decade or so.

Careful.

The problem with "Atlas Shrugs" (a great book I'll admit)

is it deals with extremes.

Money is not evil certainly.

But always remember, it is not good either.

It is exactly like every tool every human has ever had his hands on.

It can be used in any way any individual chooses.

And the way he chooses to use it, has very little to do with how he got it.

Hopefully that makes sense to you.

But definitely read the book.

lol, very possible, but it was Mirage, MGM Mirage is the company, the hotel I was at was the Mirage.

And I apoligize for farting in your vehicle... it's just something I liked to do to make the time go by. I thought it was hilarious, especially just before dropping it off, and you know they smell it but are too embarassed to say anything :)

Yeah, a big part of it is finding a cure for mental illness and addiction.

That's probably 99% of homelessness. And a huge portion of that are ex-soldiers who saw some stuff that messed them up... and that's our fault for not taking care of them.

But the rest really is public works I think.

1. It's impossible. Whenever I go to Downtown Las Vegas (not the strip everyone knows about, the old Las Vegas) there are so many homeless people, like literally hundreds of them. And I always talk to a couple for entertainment, and I've never met one who was sane... there are sane ones out there, but there's just no help for most of them. They have something wrong with their brains, and have no hope of ever holding a job. All you could do with most of them is put them in a psych ward.

2. But for people willing and capable of working, minumum wage should be raised to a sustainable level. In Vegas it's like 8.15, some places I think are as low as 5.50. I'm a single guy with very few expenses, and there is no way I could ever live on that, and you have people raising families who have to make do with it.

3. This would be a burden to some small businesses (now I have a bone to pick here, because the majority of business that pay minimum wage are giant fast food co. that could easily easily afford to pay more, meanwhile most small businesses do pay more than minimum wage) either way though, this cost is easily alleviated.

4.To counter the cost of higher minimum wage, implement Universal Health Care. The last job I had with an actual employer was MGM Mirage, I did valet which was cool for tips, plus they paid $10.50/ hour, which is okay. But for every $10.50, the company had to pay around $5 for health insurance... think about that. That's a $5 raise for every employee with health insurance. I think that's a pretty common amount that employers have to pay for healthcare.

The problems people have with Universal Health Care are understandable. Big government always sounds scary. It sounds like socialism because people are paying for other people's doctor visits.

But that's already what insurance is, you are paying for other people's health. This is just on a bigger scale.

Universal Health Insurance would be cheaper in the long run. If everyone is insured there would be less cases of the uninsured waiting to visit the doctor until the last minute. Meaning that thousands of hundred thousand dollar procedures would never be necessary, because the problem would be caught ahead of time. Also, it would be non-profit. Private insurance needs to make money, this means they'll cut corners, charge more, wait on expensive procedures just to save money even if someone's life is in danger.

I could go on and on, and point out that the U.S. already spends more than any other country on Health Care, and has one of the worst systems. And all of the top rated countries have Universal Healthcare. etc etc.

5. Okay, now the people working are making more money. The problem then is many companies will raise prices for no reason except that people can afford it. So there's a couple things that are already law that simply need to be enforced.

A. Enforce anti-monopoly laws. These have been completely ignored for the last decade or more.

B. Enforce price gauging laws. Again, they're on the books, but have been completely ignored.

So at this point the extra cost of employees has been countered by Universal Health Care, companies may even be saving money after the raises with it. Inflation has been kept to a minimum since printing money isn't necessary for the plan, and if the feds take the monopoly laws and price gauging laws as seriously as they take other laws, things should be kept in check.

7. Public works. Every successful nation in history is always building. We've left this almost completely to private industry. There is no reason that the U.S. and States should not be always doing at least a few massive projects. Hell, build a pyramid, I don't care, but they should always always be doing something. And something that will last, and that people will go to and it will generate jobs and tourism. Plus just make the nation a better place as a whole.

8. Seriously seriously, get off the middle easts tit. Energy costs are ridiculous. Even if one does not believe in global warming, there is no reason not to convert everything to natural renewable energy. This saves money for the consumer. It creates jobs in the U.S. And it takes us out of the Middle East.

Actually socialism would work better... if it weren't for human nature. (see Brits arguement on the other side.)

But if these are the only two choices, than capitalism is the better of the two for us human beings.

Capitalism could encourage hard work, entrepreneurship, new inventions, and education.

The problem though again is human nature. After a couple generation of any pure capitalist society, all of the good things mentioned above give way to pure nepitism.

Instead of the best and the brightest getting the biggest piece of the pie, it's the kids of the best and the brightest.

Great schools are started, where only the already rich can go.

New ideas are implemented.

Then quickly taken by the money machine, while the inventors are thrown a pitance (look up the windshield wipers.)

Soon there are only two kinds of people. A few very very rich, and hordes and hordes of peasants.

And the richest by then aren't inherently better than the peasants in any way.

They simply won the sperm lottery, that's all.

Pure capitalism would quickly turn into some kind of monarchy, and would be terrible for humans in general without some democratic means of power exchange, and a plethera of social programs, especially where education is concerned.

Luckily we don't live in a capitalist or socialist society.

I completely agree.

War sucks.

It sucks for the Palestinians, and I really feel for them.

But, at some point, a group of people needs to learn to stop following the words of fake prophets, who claim to hold the ear of god, who claim to have some holy right to a piece of land, when really their leaders are just power hungry terrorists, who do not mind watching their own people die if it leads to more power for themselves.

I don't believe that Palistinians are bad people, but they keep following these bad leaders.

Who convince them to start wars with Israel every few years or so.

With zero chance of success.

All in the name of some god.

Well, you say "How can we equal between F16 , tanks, apache, military ships ....etc with small handmade rockets ????"

Maybe that's the problem?

Maybe Palestine shouldn't be trying to equal Israel's military might?

Maybe they should try following a leader who preaches peace?

If Palestine ever wants to capture the hearts of the West and the rest of the world, that is what they would have to do.

If Hamas was replaced by the Dahli Lama, the war would be over tomorrow, and in three months the land would be absolutely flooded with foreign support.

People the world over would want to do everything they could to help those peacefull people.

But no.

Palestine is busy making homemade rockets, and complaining about how unfair it is that Israel has better weapons.

Wow, I was so done with your arguements. You completely ignore every point made by anyone. Then twist around words to fit in this weird idea you have that somehow gays are discriminating against you by wanting to get married. Then you start making up stories about your sister being "scared" of all the gays on her way to school...

At first I thought you were a sane, but misled person. Now I am really beginning to believe you are crazy.

There are no gays rioting the streats. No one's lives or daughters or sisters are in mortal danger.

You don't see how comments like that are even more hateful and destructive than just saying things like "I hate fags?" Because they really are.

Then you tried to compare gay people to pediphiles! You don't see that gay marriage is between two consenting people?

You really need to write an apology for this entire arguement...

Thanks E223, I'm getting so bored of replying to these. Tallblondguy - whether people "turn gay" or are born gay, is not a matter of opinion. 1+1=2 is not a matter of opinion. It's a fact. People are born gay, straight, or bi. Any change is due to chemical composition of the brain. People take forever coming out of the closet (often) because gays are discriminated against.

The next paragraph where you say my response is an example of how society tells people to be gay... I think you miss read. It was an ironic diatribe of Jake's senseless response to gay marriage. You see, ironic because he though not intentional, was giving a bigoted response, so I pointed out how his response made it appear he was one of the people himself that he was being a bigot against... I know confusing. What's even more confusing is that infact the response would not have even worked had it been, as you said, me encouraging him to be gay... I don't, from your arguements, expect you to understand that.

Okay, your entire right to vote arguement boggles the mind. According to your own arguement, (this is called a parody, it helps people like you who can't understand stuff, understand stuff. I'm waiting though for your literal response, since I'm sure you won't get the nuance) if 51% of Americans say we should reinstate slavery, then we didn't, then that means some great travesty had taken place, enough said.

Uh... okay, now to where you twisted around my arguement to mean something completely and obviously different than what I said.

you said that gay people were not discriminated against. I gave an example of how they were. Then you went all "black people this" and "fear" that, and went on a rant about losing your job.

You seem to think I live in some state of fear? You're aware that I'm not gay right? If not, now you are, not that it matters in the least in any of my arguements. So I'm not sure why you think I may be afraid of something, but from my profile you can actually follow a link to my site, which has my name, David Heintzelman, it even has a map of exactly where I live for shits and giggles. Again, where you got the idea I was afraid is beyond me. You though... first you accuse me of being afraid, then you say how you post anonymously because... you're scared. It seems a bit schitzo.

As for Mormons and Catholics not giving money to the cause of denying a group of people their rights...

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_11102139

http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/queer-town/queer-town-the-catholic-power/

Last paragraph; you make the point earlier in your arguement (albeit the point was completely out of context of the arguement you were then debating) that just because "African American people have killed white people before. Does that make all black people murderers?" And so I would say the same of any of the vandalism you're implying is the work of the gay hordes - of which I have heard of none, a link wouldn't hurt your arguement there.

And there's a whole debate already devoted to whether religions should pay taxes, where I posted I think a couple times at least. But for the record, they should. Any group that tries to influence policies of a nation, should than have to participate as a member of that society, hence pay taxes. If religious groups want to maintain their tax exempt status, they should excuse themselves from influencing policy. You can't have your cake and eat it to.

That's ridiculous.

That guy who was engaged then "turned gay" was already gay. Society told him he wasn't gay, that's why it took so long to figure out. Okay, in that example, bi-sexual. But people do not "turn" gay because of outside influence, it's something internal, in the brain.

I think society tells way more people that they are gay than that they aren't.

Please give me an example where society tells anyone to be gay. Do you seriously think life is somehow better or easier if you're gay? Do you not think gay people get made fun of, discriminated against, and avoided all of the time for being gay? How on earth would you justify your opinion that somehow society wants you to be gay?

the gay movement has begun trying to steal the right to vote from me

Again, how so? The only right being denied in this case is homosexuals Constitutional right to the "pursuit of happiness." Not to mention visitation rights in hospitals, or any one of the thousands of rights denied gay couples.

called names, attacked, been told "no intelligent straight man would oppose gay marriage" as is said on this board, while we on the other side are about as polite as can be.

Really? So no gay person has ever been killed for being gay? Yet you're sad because someone stated the opinion that "no intelligent straight man would oppose gay marriage." Then please, by all means, make an intelligent arguemnent for your side. It will be the first.

The only hatred I've seen has been coming from the homosexual community. If you don't believe me, take a look at what they've been doing to the Mormons.

The mormon and catholic churches, but especially the mormon churches, spent millions trying to deny a group of people a human right, now some gays are protesting this by not shopping at their stores. And you call this "hatred?" Really, you need to think about this a little harder, or move on to the next subject.

I did way more than ridicule.

See my post on the other side.

And you and jake seemed to miss the fact that, I wasn't ridiculing the fact that jake is gay. That's fine. I was ridiculing his ridiculous response, which proved him to be gay.

See what I'm saying?

Next, you don't know anyone who decided to be gay. You know people who were born gay, but who were told by society they weren't gay and gay is bad, so were in conflict for a large part of their lives until they realized they had been gay the whole time... like Jake :)

Don't be scared of posting your opinion (I don't think you really are anyway.) I'm probably one of the biggest a-holes on this site, so take it from me nothing is personal.

That said, if you want to take the Bible literally, it says sleep not fuck. So fine then, I'm nit-picking.

But the Bible also says this about sex, "It's better to spill your seed on the belly of a prostitute, than to let one drop fall to the ground."

So then, in one sentence the Bible says that both prostitution and "safe sex" (the pull-out method) are better than jacking off.

So where is all the moral indignation at the practice of jacking off? Sure they say not to do it. But what religion has donated money to movements in order to end the practice?

And if it is better to have sex with a prostitute for strictly recreational reasons (not baby-making) where then on the moral hierarchy would homosexuality fall? Is it more or less evil than masturbation?

The point is that, if you choose to believe there's a big, all powerful daddy in the sky, and he's so bored he watches everything we do in our comparitively miniscule lives, yet so communications impaired that he'll only talk to us through a book written hundreds of years ago, you have to believe he meant it when he said, "he who has not sinned throw the first stone" and "judge and you will be judged."

Make no mistake, this denial of gays to participate in basic rights is "throwing stones" and it is "judging."

Fine, the Bible says what it says of marriage. One can choose to follow what it says. But one at least who truely believes it is the word of god cannot deny another their choice of whether they will follow what it says or not.

"So, personally I don't agree with those who are gay individuals." Sure, you agree with a lot of gay individuals on a lot of things. What that sentence really says is that you think either they should not exist, which they obviously do, or that they should just pretend not to be gay. You cannot "disagree" with a state of being. You may not like them, you may not believe in them, but it is impossible to say you "disagree" with something that you yourself claim in another sentence is real.

You're being very melevolent in your paragraph, so I'm not "chopping you to pieces."

If you think about it though, there is an underlying and glaring hypocricy in your arguement.

In one point you site the Bible as a reason for being against something, even though you admit it does not hurt you. And by using the Bible as your reasoning for being against something, you are disobeying the Bible - judge not and all that.

So, you have some very defined opinions. Perhaps if you stopped hiding behind the Bible, and use your own intellect instead, they would hold up better in a debate.

Jake said:

It hurts families, the more gay marriage the less families there will be, children need a mother and a father to look up to.

Good job voting that idiotic statement down everyone. I don't think the source of that idea has been explored enough though. And personally, I believe in humilating idiotic statements as a form of social punishment, so here goes. Hopefully you read this Jake.

gay marriage = less families only if you believe that people would choose to be gay instead of heterosexual.

that is, you jake, think that someone who is otherwise attracted to the opposite sex, would have had kids and raised them, will now move in with someone of the same sex and not have kids.

ignoring for a moment that this isn't all together bad since there are too many people. what kind of person would think that may be the case?

I know for myself, being very comfortable in my heterosexuality, I would not magically turn gay because a law was passed.

do you fear, jake, that you may magically turn gay if a law were passed?

because that is really the only reason for your statement. if you actually think about what your wrote, I mean, that's the only possible end conclusion.

and if you do stand behind that statement jake, I have to ask myself, what kind of person would have such a ridiculous fear.

and I can only think of one kind jake. a closet gay person.

so if you want to come out, which I'm assuming from your statement deep down you do, then this is the place for it. There seems to be a lot of open people here, and at least one very popular openly gay member.

it's okay jake, be brave.

and if you do choose to not come out, that's okay, I understand it's a cold hard world out there for a gay person. but know this at least.

whatever you do, whatever you say, no matter how much you deny it, I at least will always know that, you jake, are gay. and I accept that.