Let's say that there is 100% inflation in the next 10 years. My house is worth a lot more on paper, but more importantly, my salary has gone up but my mortgage is fixed; it then consumes a lower percentage of my salary, giving me more money to buy toys.
You're assuming your salary will go up. Why? If you make this assumption, it doesn't matter that you have equity in a house. You could not have a house and still be able to buy more with your increased salary.
As I posted in another thread, the rental rates in my area (Santa Barbara...median house price $1 mil, housing prices rise about 15% yearly) have been rising a steady 5% every year for a long time. I rent a loft apartment with a nice view for $1150. To buy something comparable it would probably cost around $500,000. I am absolutely certain this is a bubble. I see people everywhere taking out interest only loans in order to "get into" the housing market here. It is absolutely insane. The next bubble I foresee is in the demand for bankruptcy counselling.
One sign that a market is in a bubble is that is has become mostly speculative. Like, for example, people buying petfood.com stock simply because they believed it had to go up in price, regardless of its fundamentals. Now take a look at housing. In my area, rental prices are rising around 5% every year. Housing prices are rising 20% every year. Why would home buying prices be rising so much faster than home renting prices? Many people in this area are getting interest only loans, or ridiculous 50 year mortgages in order to get into the market, because its a "sure thing." This increased buying pressure drives the prices up. When this happens, things tend to get way way way overvalued, which they definitely are now (median home price here is $1 million). I am pretty sure we're in a bubble here, but who knows when it will burst? My best guess is there will be a level of interest rates that will cause people with adjustable rate mortgages to really start defaulting on their loans, and this will be when the house of cards comes tumbling down.
And I too wish we didn't. Unfortunately, we have to start somewhere. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are, for now, necessary alliances. The day will come when they have to answer to their people.
Where is your plan? All you (and liberals in general) are offering is criticism without solutions or, at best, idealistic isolationism.
How's this for a plan: Don't invade and occupy nations in the middle east. This makes the problem 100 times worse. After decades of mistreating the people of this region, we're in a bad starting point in dealing with terrorism, but that is not a reason to exacerbate the problem. This is like dealing with a swarm of angry bees by sticking your head inside the bees nest.
My personal suggestion would be to stop supporting the royal families and dictators in the middle east that we rely on for oil deals. Pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia. Deal more evenhandedly with the Palestinian/Israeli situation. Lastly, pour money into promoting progressive causes in the middle east like women's suffrage and human rights.
Our invasion of Iraq was the logical step in combating the cause of terrorism. While it turns out that Iraq wasn't as much of a threat as we thought it was originally (their nuclear and ICBM programs were not what our allies' and our own intelligence expected), the invasion of Iraq was done with the ultimate goal of providing United States security.
No, it wasn't a logical step. It was an idealistic neoconservative step that wasn't planned out beyond "They'll greet us with open arms!" Lets look at the results of this invasion. We removed a secular dictator and replaced him with:
50% chance - Civil war followed by, most likely a Sharia Theocracy. Iran is sucked into the civil war because of its Shia population. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria are sucked in because of their Sunni populations.
25% chance - An elected government that can only hold power with the protection of the US military, creating extreme instability in the entire middle east. The presense of the US military threatens Iraq's neighbors, creating surging nationalism and strengthens the dictators. Also a huge recruiting tool for Jihadists.
15% chance - A military strongman like Saddam takes power after we leave and rules with an Iron Fist. Note: this happened with Britain in the 20s.
10% chance - The Sunnis accept their loss of power, the jihadists accept they don't have popular support. The US keeps 14 military bases in the country, fueling Jihadist recruiting and possibily resulting in the overthrow of the secular governments surrounding Iraq.
I'm seeing lose-lose here, what realistic scenario do you think could possibly result in increased security for the US?
I don't think the neoconservatives are an imperialist movement--no more than capitalism itself is an imperialist movement, at least. Nobody wants to establish a 51st state or a colony. I implore you to find a writing or statement from the Administration that implicates that. Our occupation of Iraq is temporary--just like we've said all along. Again, the whole plan revolves around us handing the country back to the Iraqis as an example to the rest of the Middle East.
Ok, how's this?
The Case for American Empire written by a leading neoconservative thinker, Max Boot, in the Weekly Standard (a leading neoconservative publication). I'll even give you a quote if you don't want to read it: "The most realistic response to terrorism is for America to embrace its imperial role."
You claim that our occupation is "temporary." You'd better tell that to the contractors building 14 military bases in Iraq. If you don' want to click on that link, its an article from the Chicago Tribune titled: 14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq:Long-term military presence planned.
So what were we expected to do? Support the anti-Western dictators in the region?
Here's an idea...how about we don't support any dictators! What a novel concept. You know those countries Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? You know, our "allies?" Those are dictatorships that we shouldn't support.
But it's not that simple! South Korea, a huge U.S. economic and military ally in the region, is situated perilously nearby. Approximately one-fourth the size of Utah, South Korea the home of millions of people. It's capital, Seoul, is actually within artillery range of the North Koreans. Estimates state that if the North Koreans decided to attack that South Korea would be concurred in less than 20 minutes. Twenty minutes...
If we invaded North Korea, not only would our losses be incredible from the heavily militarized and indoctrinated populace, but we'd be signing a death warrant for millions of South Koreans. Ironically, if we invaded, the same people that point to North Korea as an inconsistency in our policy now would be blaming the U.S., yet again, for every and every death.
As they should. You see, we shouldn't be in the business of invading countries that aren't truly threatening us at all. Oh, and even if they were sitting out in the middle of the pacific, we would not invade them if they had nuclear weapons. That was the point that damned well every potential enemy of ours has now learned.
Umm.. except for the fact that Iran isn't really democratic
Umm.. Except Turkey, its the most democractic muslim state in the Middle East. Iran is a Republic and votes democratically (majority rules) for its President and Parliament. Women are allowed to vote, and 1/3 of the ministers are women. They have a ways to go, but to say they are not democratic is stupid.
They're effectively ruled by the Ayatollah
Huh? They are an Islamic Republic and yes, the head of the "Islamic" part is indeed an Ayatollah. He doesn't have any kind of ultimate power, and is considered less powerful than the President. Once again, Iran is not perfect, but they're damned better than most of our "allies" in the region!
Are you honestly saying not invading Iraq is the equivalent of appeasing Nazi Germany?
Yes, not confronting islamic extremism in a direct, meaningful way would have been just as cowardly and ineffective as appeasement of Nazi Germany.
How is invading Iraq confronting islamic extremism? Iraq was the most secular state in the middle east before we invaded and is now a breeding ground for jihadists. Saddam's worst enemy was islamic extremism, and he did everything he could to stamp it out wherever he saw it. The reason Iraq was at war with Iran was because Saddam was so scared of Islamists. Now we're looking at a situation where what is considered a "good outcome" is if a guy named Ayatollah Al Sistani is elected leader of the country. Not only this, but we've polarized the entire region against us and created the best possible recruiting tool for groups like Al Quaida. "The infidel Americans have started a new crusade and now occupy many of our holy places! Join the Jihad!"
And one that definitely derives some strength from the popularity of anti-Americanism in Europe and abroad as well.
Yeah, maybe you can take a hint from this. And no, they don't hate us for out freedom. They hate our government for what it is doing in the world.
Why don't you similarly just move to "democratic" Iran or join the jihad if you feel America is so evil?
Great, a "You must hate America" card. I feel what this administration is doing is evil and wrong. The neoconservatives are an imperial movement. You need to understand this before you can understand why their policies could bring about the downfall of this country.
Easy. September 11th showed us that we can no longer ignore the problem in the Middle East.
Ignore it? We helped cause it. The policy of the US has consistently to support pro-western dictators in the region who, surprise surprise, oppress their people and create poverty...out of which comes terrorism.
A proactive approach to combating Islamic extremism had to be taken before a nuclear weapon went off in a major American city.
I'll argue that our actions in the last 3 years have made this scenario much more likely. As evidenced by North Korea, all a nation needs to do to keep us from invading (unprovoked as we did with Iraq) is build nuclear weapons. No nuclear weapons? We'll invade. Nuclear weapons, we won't invade. Its as simple as that.
.As a short-term means, we attacked Afghanistan, disorienting the enemy long enough to achieve our long-term objective: fighting extremism at its source--poverty and disenfranchisement. The means of doing so would be establishing a free and democratic Islamic state right smack in the center of the Middle East.
Hmm, you mean like Iran? Yeah, maybe you forgot the latest target of our sabre-rattling IS a democratic Islamic state. Yes, this is the same nation who's other democratic government we overthrew in the 1970s because they weren't pro-western enough.
The best target for this was Iraq. Its leader was illegitimate and evil. Its people were the most likely in the region to accept democratic values.
Its economy was viable for the excesses of capitalism. And, we thought they had weapons of mass destruction too; a politically convenient way to get the rest of the world on-board.
WMD were the justification given to the American people. Do you honestly think the public would have gone along with this escapade if they knew 1400 of our soldiers would die, at a minimum, so that Iraqi's could vote?
Unfortunately, we were wrong about the last one. But that still doesn't mean the whole assessment was wrong. It wasn't. Against all predictions, the majority of the Iraqi people showed up to vote, virtually without incident.
Wow, you really bought that one hook, line, and sinker! Here's some text from a 1967 article in the New York Times:
U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote :
Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror
by Peter Grose, Special to the New York Times (9/4/1967: p. 2)
WASHINGTON, Sept. 3-- United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.
According to reports from Saigon, 83 per cent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong.
The size of the popular vote and the inability of the Vietcong to destroy the election machinery were the two salient facts in a preliminary assessment of the nation election based on the incomplete returns reaching here...
Sound familiar?
Regardless, do you really think democratic roots are as glorious as the classical image of citizens uniting in brotherhood against tyranny? Please... You do realize that the success of the revolutionary war had less to do with the colonists and more to do with a spiteful France who poured billions into the effort? In fact, only a third of the colonists up to the battles of Concord and Lexington actively wanted to secede from Great Briton
You are equating the French help in the American Revolution with the unilateral invasion of the US into Iraq to overthrow Hussein? You do realize that every major nation in Europe transitioned into democracies without having to be invaded, don't you? That's right, the reform came from within these countries.
You know, you're right. We probably would have been safer with Saddam still in power.
Great, more expensive targets to blow up with RPGs. No, sending robots into Iraq is not going to solve any problems, Rummie. This is just another way to flush tax dollars down the toilet.
Anybody remember this (I doubt there are many AOL users here, but maybe). It was a collection of utilities to mess with AOL like a tool to spam chat rooms, a way to fake like you are someone else in a chat room, and a phishing tool to send an IM to everyone in the chat room that said something along the lines of "I am an administrator. Please verify your password." You would be amazed at the number of people who would respond with a password. I now realize how much of an a**hole I was being by using clueless people's accounts, but back then it was just good fun...I think there's still newer versions of AOHell out there, but I got of AOL a long time ago so I don't know if its really much of a problem anymore.
I haven't read anything recently speaking to these claims
Probably because you only read answersingenesis or other fundie garbage. They deliberately distort and cherry-pick what they report. If you are serious about learning the current state of this branch of science, I would suggest the journal "Palaeontology." If you don't want to pay for membership to the association (I think its $150 a year or something like that), here is a good online source.
I and a large number of others see the evolutionists as the ones promoting irrational fantasies that can't be proven or reasonably trusted
I and a large number of others see the evolutionists as the ones promoting irrational fantasies that can't be proven or reasonably trusted. Science doesn't deal with "proving" things. The point of the scientific method is to ensure that all ideas are given the chance to be disproven, so that the best, most likely ones come out on top. Right now Evolutionary Biology has a collection of theories which are considered "most likely." The question of whether evolution happens at all is not even a question anymore. We are well beyond that. Clearly evolution happens. We have fossils that show it happening and we have observed it in the laboratory. We have no other rational explaination for the observations we have made in allele change over time. 'God did it' isn't a rational explaination because it doesn't say or predict anything at all. Relying on a book written a few thousand years ago (Roughly 0.000008 percent of the history of the earth) by humans who believed people could live inside whales and thought the earth was a giant disk and was the center of the solar system is completely insane. Genesis makes absolutely no sense in light of carefully gathered observations and completely ignores the last two thousand years of scientific insight into the natural world. All I can say is, let it go.
Creationism stands on much stronger footing that evolutionism...
Certainly, if you consider "stronger footing" to mean the exact opposite. Shall we compare?
Creationism makes no predictions, is unfalsifiable, has never been observed, has failed the peer review of the scientific community, and directly contradicts the currently accepted models of physics, math, biochemistry, and geology.
Evolutionism makes predictions, can be falsified by evidence, has been observed both directly and indirectly, passes peer review with flying colors daily, and fits in snugly with the currently accepted models of physics, math, biochemistry, and geology.
Winner? Evolution. Creationism didn't even show up to the fight...
Don't be turned off by the fact that this material is from a creationist propaganda site
Excuse me? Hate to tell you, but all those articles contain are either claims that have been roundly discredited by the scientific community or insignificant nitpicks that say nothing about whether the fossils came from an ancestor to humans. You don't really believe their BS, do you? If you do, I'm afraid I can't do much to help you, its too late.
Be more specific about where to look. (I don't believe you can)
Sahelanthropus tchadensis (6 million years).
Ardipithecus ramidus (4.4 million years)
Australopithecus anamensis (4 million years)
Kenyanthropus platyops (3.5 million years)
Australopithecus afarensis (3.2 million years, known as "Lucy") ...shall I continue?
The intermediate creatures or ancient men cited by evolutionists have all turned out to be regular humans suffering from debilitating, deforming diseases
Wow. I won't even comment on that but to say you have no knowledge of human palaeontology.
By the way, we are actually devolving through the process of mutation, not evolving. Ancient man is superior.
Which ancient man are you talking about? The one with the much smaller brain?
Macroevolution has been observed, if by macroevolution, you mean the evolution of completely new species. These cases of speciation have been observed in the laboratory. Oh, and if you want to observe monkeys(sic) turning into humans, take a look at the fossil record.
Simply state, validly, that evolution seems to fit with the facts as science is best capable of recording it, and that there are some failures which we cannot explain yet but which alternative theories, including creationism might possibly explain
Alternative theories? Could you please state the scientific Theory of Creationism? I'd love to hear it. Also, could you show one weakness in the current Theories of Evolution that can be explained scientifically by this Theory of Creationism, or any other alternate theory?
science admits that spontaneous generation happened in the past -- otherwise, whence did life evolve in the first place? Creationism, in its most fundamental form, is that a Sentience caused that first spontaneous generation.
Abiogenesis is being studied as we speak. We understand many of the processes that may be responsible for the forming of a protocell from organic molecules, but nothing to constitute a scientific theory. As to creationism explaining abiogenesis, this is absolute hogwash. How did a "sentience" cause abiogenesis? What processes did the sentience use? What is this sentience and how was *it* created? Just saying a sentience started life tells you absolutely nothing useful. I could just as easily say "A pile of rocks created the first life" and I would be saying something as scientifically useful as saying "A sentience created the first life."
No, you cannot retrofit quality and performance into a software project.
Maybe not quality, but you can certainly retrofit performance into a software project. In fact, I would say its preferable that way. Worry about sound structure the first go-around, identify the performance bottlenecks, and then retrofit them with the overall structure/security/modularity always in mind. Otherwise you may end up spending many orders of magnitude of the amount of time optimizing chunks of code that don't have a real effect on the overall performance of the program, and you can end up with some very unmaintainable code in the process. I'd say with most projects I've worked on, maybe 5% of the code accounts for 95% of the resource use. You don't always know where that 5% is going to be until the project is relatively far along, as requirements and specs can constantly change.
"Expert" is an ambiguous term and usually used in an argument from authority attempt. You can use some heuristics to try and define an "expert," such as "someone who has a PhD" or "someone with published work on the topic" but this is all unreliable and misleading. I, personally, might be considered an expert on old, bad movies. I have no degree in film, and I've never written a published work. In fact, many people I know don't even know about my "expertise." The only way to know if someone is truly knowledgeable is to throw their words up for peer review, which is exactly what Wikipedia does.
I agree, GISH is an excellent game, but its a sidescroller, not a traditional adventure game. I love both genres and hope they make a comeback, possibly with the help of these independent developers.
For those who believe that the best game this year was that badly named expansion pack that they have the nerve to call Halo 2...
Oh for god's sake. Halo 2 had revamped graphics, sound, a completely new single player campaign and XBOX Live support. What is your definition of a sequel anyways?
That was my reaction...I've been using my debit card with ITunes. Don't you need a credit/debit card to sign up with Paypal in the first place? Why not skip the middle man and just use your credit/debit card with ITunes?
What's the big f-ing deal about Tim Burton? The guy has NEVER directed a good movie.
You're on crack...
Batman Batman 2 Sleepy Hollow Nightmare Before Christmas Ed Wood
Tim Burton gives us something different with every new movie. You may not like his style, but at least the guy comes up with original ideas...a wonderful break from Spielburg, Michael Bay, etc. It should say something that Johnny Depp signs on so often.
Slashdot Mirror
Let's say that there is 100% inflation in the next 10 years. My house is worth a lot more on paper, but more importantly, my salary has gone up but my mortgage is fixed; it then consumes a lower percentage of my salary, giving me more money to buy toys.
You're assuming your salary will go up. Why? If you make this assumption, it doesn't matter that you have equity in a house. You could not have a house and still be able to buy more with your increased salary.
As I posted in another thread, the rental rates in my area (Santa Barbara...median house price $1 mil, housing prices rise about 15% yearly) have been rising a steady 5% every year for a long time. I rent a loft apartment with a nice view for $1150. To buy something comparable it would probably cost around $500,000. I am absolutely certain this is a bubble. I see people everywhere taking out interest only loans in order to "get into" the housing market here. It is absolutely insane. The next bubble I foresee is in the demand for bankruptcy counselling.
One sign that a market is in a bubble is that is has become mostly speculative. Like, for example, people buying petfood.com stock simply because they believed it had to go up in price, regardless of its fundamentals. Now take a look at housing. In my area, rental prices are rising around 5% every year. Housing prices are rising 20% every year. Why would home buying prices be rising so much faster than home renting prices? Many people in this area are getting interest only loans, or ridiculous 50 year mortgages in order to get into the market, because its a "sure thing." This increased buying pressure drives the prices up. When this happens, things tend to get way way way overvalued, which they definitely are now (median home price here is $1 million). I am pretty sure we're in a bubble here, but who knows when it will burst? My best guess is there will be a level of interest rates that will cause people with adjustable rate mortgages to really start defaulting on their loans, and this will be when the house of cards comes tumbling down.
IANAL but isn't this an attempt at price fixing?
And I too wish we didn't. Unfortunately, we have to start somewhere. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are, for now, necessary alliances. The day will come when they have to answer to their people.
Where is your plan? All you (and liberals in general) are offering is criticism without solutions or, at best, idealistic isolationism.
How's this for a plan: Don't invade and occupy nations in the middle east. This makes the problem 100 times worse. After decades of mistreating the people of this region, we're in a bad starting point in dealing with terrorism, but that is not a reason to exacerbate the problem. This is like dealing with a swarm of angry bees by sticking your head inside the bees nest.
My personal suggestion would be to stop supporting the royal families and dictators in the middle east that we rely on for oil deals. Pull our troops out of Saudi Arabia. Deal more evenhandedly with the Palestinian/Israeli situation. Lastly, pour money into promoting progressive causes in the middle east like women's suffrage and human rights.
Our invasion of Iraq was the logical step in combating the cause of terrorism. While it turns out that Iraq wasn't as much of a threat as we thought it was originally (their nuclear and ICBM programs were not what our allies' and our own intelligence expected), the invasion of Iraq was done with the ultimate goal of providing United States security.
No, it wasn't a logical step. It was an idealistic neoconservative step that wasn't planned out beyond "They'll greet us with open arms!" Lets look at the results of this invasion. We removed a secular dictator and replaced him with:
50% chance - Civil war followed by, most likely a Sharia Theocracy. Iran is sucked into the civil war because of its Shia population. Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria are sucked in because of their Sunni populations.
25% chance - An elected government that can only hold power with the protection of the US military, creating extreme instability in the entire middle east. The presense of the US military threatens Iraq's neighbors, creating surging nationalism and strengthens the dictators. Also a huge recruiting tool for Jihadists.
15% chance - A military strongman like Saddam takes power after we leave and rules with an Iron Fist. Note: this happened with Britain in the 20s.
10% chance - The Sunnis accept their loss of power, the jihadists accept they don't have popular support. The US keeps 14 military bases in the country, fueling Jihadist recruiting and possibily resulting in the overthrow of the secular governments surrounding Iraq.
I'm seeing lose-lose here, what realistic scenario do you think could possibly result in increased security for the US?
I don't think the neoconservatives are an imperialist movement--no more than capitalism itself is an imperialist movement, at least. Nobody wants to establish a 51st state or a colony. I implore you to find a writing or statement from the Administration that implicates that. Our occupation of Iraq is temporary--just like we've said all along. Again, the whole plan revolves around us handing the country back to the Iraqis as an example to the rest of the Middle East.
Ok, how's this? The Case for American Empire written by a leading neoconservative thinker, Max Boot, in the Weekly Standard (a leading neoconservative publication). I'll even give you a quote if you don't want to read it: "The most realistic response to terrorism is for America to embrace its imperial role."
You claim that our occupation is "temporary." You'd better tell that to the contractors building 14 military bases in Iraq. If you don' want to click on that link, its an article from the Chicago Tribune titled: 14 `enduring bases' set in Iraq:Long-term military presence planned.
Still think this is a "temporary" occupation?
Edit: I checked and the Supreme Leader of Iran is considered more powerful than the President. My apologies.
I still stand by Iran being the most democratic islamic nation in the region minus Turkey.
So what were we expected to do? Support the anti-Western dictators in the region?
Here's an idea...how about we don't support any dictators! What a novel concept. You know those countries Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? You know, our "allies?" Those are dictatorships that we shouldn't support.
But it's not that simple! South Korea, a huge U.S. economic and military ally in the region, is situated perilously nearby. Approximately one-fourth the size of Utah, South Korea the home of millions of people. It's capital, Seoul, is actually within artillery range of the North Koreans. Estimates state that if the North Koreans decided to attack that South Korea would be concurred in less than 20 minutes. Twenty minutes...
If we invaded North Korea, not only would our losses be incredible from the heavily militarized and indoctrinated populace, but we'd be signing a death warrant for millions of South Koreans. Ironically, if we invaded, the same people that point to North Korea as an inconsistency in our policy now would be blaming the U.S., yet again, for every and every death.
As they should. You see, we shouldn't be in the business of invading countries that aren't truly threatening us at all. Oh, and even if they were sitting out in the middle of the pacific, we would not invade them if they had nuclear weapons. That was the point that damned well every potential enemy of ours has now learned.
Umm.. except for the fact that Iran isn't really democratic
Umm.. Except Turkey, its the most democractic muslim state in the Middle East. Iran is a Republic and votes democratically (majority rules) for its President and Parliament. Women are allowed to vote, and 1/3 of the ministers are women. They have a ways to go, but to say they are not democratic is stupid.
They're effectively ruled by the Ayatollah
Huh? They are an Islamic Republic and yes, the head of the "Islamic" part is indeed an Ayatollah. He doesn't have any kind of ultimate power, and is considered less powerful than the President. Once again, Iran is not perfect, but they're damned better than most of our "allies" in the region!
Are you honestly saying not invading Iraq is the equivalent of appeasing Nazi Germany?
Yes, not confronting islamic extremism in a direct, meaningful way would have been just as cowardly and ineffective as appeasement of Nazi Germany.
How is invading Iraq confronting islamic extremism? Iraq was the most secular state in the middle east before we invaded and is now a breeding ground for jihadists. Saddam's worst enemy was islamic extremism, and he did everything he could to stamp it out wherever he saw it. The reason Iraq was at war with Iran was because Saddam was so scared of Islamists. Now we're looking at a situation where what is considered a "good outcome" is if a guy named Ayatollah Al Sistani is elected leader of the country. Not only this, but we've polarized the entire region against us and created the best possible recruiting tool for groups like Al Quaida. "The infidel Americans have started a new crusade and now occupy many of our holy places! Join the Jihad!"
And one that definitely derives some strength from the popularity of anti-Americanism in Europe and abroad as well.
Yeah, maybe you can take a hint from this. And no, they don't hate us for out freedom. They hate our government for what it is doing in the world.
Why don't you similarly just move to "democratic" Iran or join the jihad if you feel America is so evil?
Great, a "You must hate America" card. I feel what this administration is doing is evil and wrong. The neoconservatives are an imperial movement. You need to understand this before you can understand why their policies could bring about the downfall of this country.
Ignore it? We helped cause it. The policy of the US has consistently to support pro-western dictators in the region who, surprise surprise, oppress their people and create poverty...out of which comes terrorism.
A proactive approach to combating Islamic extremism had to be taken before a nuclear weapon went off in a major American city.
I'll argue that our actions in the last 3 years have made this scenario much more likely. As evidenced by North Korea, all a nation needs to do to keep us from invading (unprovoked as we did with Iraq) is build nuclear weapons. No nuclear weapons? We'll invade. Nuclear weapons, we won't invade. Its as simple as that.
Hmm, you mean like Iran? Yeah, maybe you forgot the latest target of our sabre-rattling IS a democratic Islamic state. Yes, this is the same nation who's other democratic government we overthrew in the 1970s because they weren't pro-western enough.
The best target for this was Iraq. Its leader was illegitimate and evil. Its people were the most likely in the region to accept democratic values. Its economy was viable for the excesses of capitalism. And, we thought they had weapons of mass destruction too; a politically convenient way to get the rest of the world on-board.
WMD were the justification given to the American people. Do you honestly think the public would have gone along with this escapade if they knew 1400 of our soldiers would die, at a minimum, so that Iraqi's could vote?
Unfortunately, we were wrong about the last one. But that still doesn't mean the whole assessment was wrong. It wasn't. Against all predictions, the majority of the Iraqi people showed up to vote, virtually without incident.
Wow, you really bought that one hook, line, and sinker! Here's some text from a 1967 article in the New York Times:
Sound familiar?
Regardless, do you really think democratic roots are as glorious as the classical image of citizens uniting in brotherhood against tyranny? Please... You do realize that the success of the revolutionary war had less to do with the colonists and more to do with a spiteful France who poured billions into the effort? In fact, only a third of the colonists up to the battles of Concord and Lexington actively wanted to secede from Great Briton
You are equating the French help in the American Revolution with the unilateral invasion of the US into Iraq to overthrow Hussein? You do realize that every major nation in Europe transitioned into democracies without having to be invaded, don't you? That's right, the reform came from within these countries.
You know, you're right. We probably would have been safer with Saddam still in power.
Great, more expensive targets to blow up with RPGs. No, sending robots into Iraq is not going to solve any problems, Rummie. This is just another way to flush tax dollars down the toilet.
Anybody remember this (I doubt there are many AOL users here, but maybe). It was a collection of utilities to mess with AOL like a tool to spam chat rooms, a way to fake like you are someone else in a chat room, and a phishing tool to send an IM to everyone in the chat room that said something along the lines of "I am an administrator. Please verify your password." You would be amazed at the number of people who would respond with a password. I now realize how much of an a**hole I was being by using clueless people's accounts, but back then it was just good fun...I think there's still newer versions of AOHell out there, but I got of AOL a long time ago so I don't know if its really much of a problem anymore.
I and a large number of others see the evolutionists as the ones promoting irrational fantasies that can't be proven or reasonably trusted. Science doesn't deal with "proving" things. The point of the scientific method is to ensure that all ideas are given the chance to be disproven, so that the best, most likely ones come out on top. Right now Evolutionary Biology has a collection of theories which are considered "most likely." The question of whether evolution happens at all is not even a question anymore. We are well beyond that. Clearly evolution happens. We have fossils that show it happening and we have observed it in the laboratory. We have no other rational explaination for the observations we have made in allele change over time. 'God did it' isn't a rational explaination because it doesn't say or predict anything at all. Relying on a book written a few thousand years ago (Roughly 0.000008 percent of the history of the earth) by humans who believed people could live inside whales and thought the earth was a giant disk and was the center of the solar system is completely insane. Genesis makes absolutely no sense in light of carefully gathered observations and completely ignores the last two thousand years of scientific insight into the natural world. All I can say is, let it go.
Creationism makes no predictions, is unfalsifiable, has never been observed, has failed the peer review of the scientific community, and directly contradicts the currently accepted models of physics, math, biochemistry, and geology.
Evolutionism makes predictions, can be falsified by evidence, has been observed both directly and indirectly, passes peer review with flying colors daily, and fits in snugly with the currently accepted models of physics, math, biochemistry, and geology.
Winner? Evolution. Creationism didn't even show up to the fight...
Don't be turned off by the fact that this material is from a creationist propaganda site
Excuse me? Hate to tell you, but all those articles contain are either claims that have been roundly discredited by the scientific community or insignificant nitpicks that say nothing about whether the fossils came from an ancestor to humans. You don't really believe their BS, do you? If you do, I'm afraid I can't do much to help you, its too late.
Ardipithecus ramidus (4.4 million years)
Australopithecus anamensis (4 million years)
Kenyanthropus platyops (3.5 million years)
Australopithecus afarensis (3.2 million years, known as "Lucy")
Macroevolution has been observed, if by macroevolution, you mean the evolution of completely new species. These cases of speciation have been observed in the laboratory. Oh, and if you want to observe monkeys(sic) turning into humans, take a look at the fossil record.
Abiogenesis is being studied as we speak. We understand many of the processes that may be responsible for the forming of a protocell from organic molecules, but nothing to constitute a scientific theory. As to creationism explaining abiogenesis, this is absolute hogwash. How did a "sentience" cause abiogenesis? What processes did the sentience use? What is this sentience and how was *it* created? Just saying a sentience started life tells you absolutely nothing useful. I could just as easily say "A pile of rocks created the first life" and I would be saying something as scientifically useful as saying "A sentience created the first life."
I wonder if its the internet (which CNN could also call the WWW)?
"Expert" is an ambiguous term and usually used in an argument from authority attempt. You can use some heuristics to try and define an "expert," such as "someone who has a PhD" or "someone with published work on the topic" but this is all unreliable and misleading. I, personally, might be considered an expert on old, bad movies. I have no degree in film, and I've never written a published work. In fact, many people I know don't even know about my "expertise." The only way to know if someone is truly knowledgeable is to throw their words up for peer review, which is exactly what Wikipedia does.
I agree, GISH is an excellent game, but its a sidescroller, not a traditional adventure game. I love both genres and hope they make a comeback, possibly with the help of these independent developers.
For those who believe that the best game this year was that badly named expansion pack that they have the nerve to call Halo 2...
Oh for god's sake. Halo 2 had revamped graphics, sound, a completely new single player campaign and XBOX Live support. What is your definition of a sequel anyways?
That was my reaction...I've been using my debit card with ITunes. Don't you need a credit/debit card to sign up with Paypal in the first place? Why not skip the middle man and just use your credit/debit card with ITunes?
What's the big f-ing deal about Tim Burton? The guy has NEVER directed a good movie.
You're on crack...
Batman
Batman 2
Sleepy Hollow
Nightmare Before Christmas
Ed Wood
Tim Burton gives us something different with every new movie. You may not like his style, but at least the guy comes up with original ideas...a wonderful break from Spielburg, Michael Bay, etc. It should say something that Johnny Depp signs on so often.
The sad fact is that there are hardly any alternatives because almost EVERY show is doing it.
Step 1: Turn off the TV
Problem solved. That will be $75. You can pay the receptionist on your way out.