"The space race of the 60's was about nationalistic pride, but these days, who are we trying to beat? The French? The Indians? The Martians?"
That is a good point, and it begs the question: are we going to just wait until it looks like another country has a serious shot at landing on Mars and then try to use our economic advantage to beat them to the punch?
It is a rather useful catalyst for innovative technology. A rather expensive one some might say. But, it took a lot of thought and creation to get people to The Moon, and it will be the same to get them to Mars. And hopefully, this technology will find a use in other markets. Plus, if life is found on Mars, there is no telling what will come from that. It may serve as a window into evolution (or maybe help to prove it).
Would a college level history class be good enough for you? Or should I google a bunch of useful sites. But now wait a minute, I'm sure you could do that yourself.
Well, not to be picky, but the U.S. is not the only country in Afghanistan, Iraq, or fighting an international war on terrorism. Yes, I know, every country worries about and tries to combat terrorism in some way; but I mean to say that many are aligning themselves with the U.S. and many of those countries also have "innocent until proven guilty" rights for their citizens. And to say that these rights only apply to some people who live on this side of an invisible line is absurd. Yes, I understand that governments do have to look out for their citizen's best interest first; however, that does not constitute preconceived guilt.
Now, is he a suspect? Without a doubt, but I think people hear "suspect" and assume guilt and that is inherently wrong. Some things are wrong regardless of within which invisible lines someone is born.
That's not the point. And the fact that people are comfortable with calling someone a criminal when, oh I don't know, no court has proven that he or she is frightens me. I mean, people talk about how we are fighting a war on terrorism to save our rights and freedoms. Well, as I recall, one of the rights for which we had to fight was the right to be *proven* guilty in a court of law. And in these times, such rights are even more important.
Actually, they came over (at first) to become rich. The first settlers were the second, third, fourth, and so on, sons of the wealthy. But since in England all inheritance went to the first son (and he then decided without contest who gets what) they could either join the church or the army after their father died. But, in New England, they could own land and become wealthy from selling whatever they found to the companies that financed their voyage. And in England, the companies that sent them over could become rich from selling that on the European market. The second wave of settlers (the Puritans) were the ones who came over because they could not practice in England anymore. Well, more to the point, they could not reform the English church to the way they wished. That is debatable however. But the fact remains that if they were successful in taking over the church they would not have tolerated other religions (as shown in how they ran their colonies where they did control the church).
So, to sum up, The U.S. was founded because of greed. Whether or not greed is necessarily bad is another debatable issue. I don't care either way, but the fact remains that this country was *not* founded on freedom, it was driven by the want of profit. Take that any way you will, I just prefer that people know the truth instead of some kindergarten fable.
"freedom and liberty doesn't matter when you are at "war"...."
Hmm, interesting. So why exactly fight a war then? What is it to fight a war without a cause? And how is it that these causes suddenly don't matter when we start fighting for them? Shouldn't they be, oh i don't know, protected even more when people are attacking them?
Slashdot Mirror
"The space race of the 60's was about nationalistic pride, but these days, who are we trying to beat? The French? The Indians? The Martians?"
That is a good point, and it begs the question: are we going to just wait until it looks like another country has a serious shot at landing on Mars and then try to use our economic advantage to beat them to the punch?
It is a rather useful catalyst for innovative technology. A rather expensive one some might say. But, it took a lot of thought and creation to get people to The Moon, and it will be the same to get them to Mars. And hopefully, this technology will find a use in other markets. Plus, if life is found on Mars, there is no telling what will come from that. It may serve as a window into evolution (or maybe help to prove it).
Would a college level history class be good enough for you? Or should I google a bunch of useful sites. But now wait a minute, I'm sure you could do that yourself.
Well, not to be picky, but the U.S. is not the only country in Afghanistan, Iraq, or fighting an international war on terrorism. Yes, I know, every country worries about and tries to combat terrorism in some way; but I mean to say that many are aligning themselves with the U.S. and many of those countries also have "innocent until proven guilty" rights for their citizens. And to say that these rights only apply to some people who live on this side of an invisible line is absurd. Yes, I understand that governments do have to look out for their citizen's best interest first; however, that does not constitute preconceived guilt.
Now, is he a suspect? Without a doubt, but I think people hear "suspect" and assume guilt and that is inherently wrong. Some things are wrong regardless of within which invisible lines someone is born.
My bad...
That's not the point. And the fact that people are comfortable with calling someone a criminal when, oh I don't know, no court has proven that he or she is frightens me. I mean, people talk about how we are fighting a war on terrorism to save our rights and freedoms. Well, as I recall, one of the rights for which we had to fight was the right to be *proven* guilty in a court of law. And in these times, such rights are even more important.
Actually, they came over (at first) to become rich. The first settlers were the second, third, fourth, and so on, sons of the wealthy. But since in England all inheritance went to the first son (and he then decided without contest who gets what) they could either join the church or the army after their father died. But, in New England, they could own land and become wealthy from selling whatever they found to the companies that financed their voyage. And in England, the companies that sent them over could become rich from selling that on the European market. The second wave of settlers (the Puritans) were the ones who came over because they could not practice in England anymore. Well, more to the point, they could not reform the English church to the way they wished. That is debatable however. But the fact remains that if they were successful in taking over the church they would not have tolerated other religions (as shown in how they ran their colonies where they did control the church).
So, to sum up, The U.S. was founded because of greed. Whether or not greed is necessarily bad is another debatable issue. I don't care either way, but the fact remains that this country was *not* founded on freedom, it was driven by the want of profit. Take that any way you will, I just prefer that people know the truth instead of some kindergarten fable.
"freedom and liberty doesn't matter when you are at "war"...."
Hmm, interesting. So why exactly fight a war then? What is it to fight a war without a cause? And how is it that these causes suddenly don't matter when we start fighting for them? Shouldn't they be, oh i don't know, protected even more when people are attacking them?