Well, I have a little girl, so I'm not sterile, whatever that's worth. And I've heard the same studies you've mentioned, but right now, my biggest fear is keeping my cell phone in my front pocket. In other words, there are lots of things that make you sterile.
I'm not saying that exposure to DU doesn't lower fertility, but judging by the rate my company was spitting out rug-rats, it must not be that big of an issue.
Nice typing with you.
And, your certainly welcome. As our drill Sgt's used to say... "Don't thank me, thank my recruiter":). However, I knew going in that I wouldn't necessarily be fighting for my freedom or even the freedom of any Americans. I knew I'd be in some foreign land, trying to spread freedom. So, although I am patriotic, what I did was not necessarily so. It was a pleasure seeing the gratitude on the faces of the Kuwaitis and the college money and VA home loans are nice to.
Unless you happen to be a tank crew sitting on top of, and in direct contact with, a cache of shells, the health risk is generally considered inconsequential. And even for the tank crews, the risk is considered small but acceptable.
I was a M1A1 crewman for a few years and spent much of my service surrounded by DU enhanced armor. I also spent a about a year in theater with a full ammo well of DU rounds.
DU at room temperature has no known health effects. However, if you were to eat the penetrator of a sabot round or try to weld through the frontal armor of a M1, you may suffer some ill effects. But if you're willing to do all that, you are looking for such a result.
It's burning DU that causes the health risks and I don't believe that it's related to the radio activity of DU. It has more to do with the fact that you are inhaling heavy metals in gas form that causes health issues.
I served with many soldiers who took part in the first gulf war in the 90's. I saw the "Gulf War Syndrome" effects that were suffered in a few of them. But these same effects were also suffered by personnel that were not armored crewman or spent any time around DU at all. This leads me, in my not-so-expert opinion, to believe that the problem was not with DU, but some other factor. It could have been the barrage of shots given before deployment, some strange sand flea living there or, like you mentioned, waking every morning with a poncho covered in oil from the fires there (imagine what was in their lungs!) I went there a year after the Desert Storm and suffered no health issues as a result. The only difference between what I went through and what the first group saw was possibly the shots taken and most of the oil fires were out by the time I got there.
I'm not disagreeing with your post at all. It's spot on. I just wanted to share my experience with DU and the time I spent around it. I don't get to do it often.
Besides, the United States is allowed to use DEPLETED uranium in their tank shells and conventional explosives. Why not Iran as well?
FTFY! Depleted Uranium is not radioactive, although it is fairly toxic when burned... but then again, so is a DU sabot round heading at you a few clicks per second. It's a weapon. Toxicity is not really a concern.
It shouldn't be surprising to anyone that Iran is building up their defenses in preperation of possible Israeli terror attacks.
"Iran should be wiped off the map"
Benjamin Netanyahu
And Iran has threatened to wipe Israel from history... Iran has called the US the "Great Satan"... The US called Iran part of the "Axis of Evil"... your point is?
Of course, because there is absolutely no relation between the Nazi's and Socialists. None whatsoever.
Now, plug your ears and repeat that over and over whenever someone tells you what Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei means.
It means a fascist douchebag co-opted a nice, grass roots organization to his own tyrannical means.
Kinda like Dick Armey and Glenn Beck.
Strange... and here I thought Glenn Beck was a Libertarian calling for LESS government and is constantly preaching about his fear of tyrannical government. So let's see. Either you're completely ignorant and totally speaking out your ass when you call Beck a Fascist or we're talking about two different Glenn Becks.
I think you're talking out your ass and just throwing around the biggest insult word you know about people you don't understand, yet have nothing but pure, white-hot hatred for. You call these people Fascist because they have done nothing to justify your hatred, so you have to make stuff up. It's easy to make yourself believe it because the hatred, or the result, is already there. You just need justification. Here is how it works: 1) You hate people who have an opinion different than your own. 2) You make up things in your head to justify that hatred (Beck is a Nazi, for example) 3) You believe it because you already hated Beck so much, him being a Nazi is not really a stretch, even though you completely fabricated it in your head.
(is there a ??? and profit in there?)
Oh, and Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei stands for "National Socialist German Workers' Party". Not that it matters as you simply won't believe a Nazi they have the word "Socialist" and "Worker's Party", right there in the name, because, you know, it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of what you hate (Nazi's) and what you don't hate (Socialism) and even the though the evidence slaps you in the face, you simply won't believe it because it's not what you believe.
Oh, and are you really saying that the Nazi's were nice people before Hitler took over? Seriously!??!
You were being ignorant. Comparing a fascist to a fascist is quasi reasonable, even if it is sort of absurd to imply a similar level of crime. But comparing somebody that's been regularly accused of being a socialist to a fascist just makes one a jack ass.
Of course, because there is absolutely no relation between the Nazi's and Socialists. None whatsoever.
Now, plug your ears and repeat that over and over whenever someone tells you what Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei means.
Republican politicians advocate smaller government...except when it comes to invading your personal life.
Actually, conservatives, not necessarily "Republicans" simply want the federal government to follow the Constitution, limited by the 10th Amendment. That means less government when dealing with stuff like farm subsidies and corporate bailouts, and could mean more government with things specifically spelled out in the Constitution, like national security.
Anything not spelled out in the Constitution as a federal government power is a power belonging to the states... period!
And what about the financial crisis? Which would you rather have, Obama stealing thousands from the pockets of millionaires [huffingtonpost.com] or a downward spiral of economic peril that was the consequence of a presidential administration's pathological revulsion to reasonable regulation.
I remember the economy humming along extremely well until the Democrats took over congress. Remember, congress controls the purse strings, writes the budgets, and therefor runs the economy.
You mean artificialy booming due to the artificial stock boost morfine. The price for detoxing back to reality is extremely high, but yeah; it was totaly booming. NOT. It made the fscking economy weak as hell. Not to mention destroy it.
Oh hello new recession we're climbing out of.
Get lost.
You mean like the dow hitting 6000 in after 9-11? Is that be bubble you are talking about?
And like most people who cite the Laffer Curve without really understanding what it is, you are missing the very basic fact (reflected in its actual name) that it is a CURVE. All the Laffer Curve represents is that there is some tax rate at which tax revenues are maximized. It doesn't state that it is a high or a low rate.
You are absolutely correct. Also, the optimum rate today may not be the optimum rate tomorrow. However, when taxes were lower, government revenues were higher, meaning that we are on the right side of the peak. ("right" meaning direction, not "correct")
Your cite to the august economics journal USA Today notwithstanding, the economy wasn't "booming" from 2003-2007; some people made a lot of money, but real wages fell during that time period. The illusion of prosperity isn't prosperity. And tax revenues generally rise every year outside a recession, so "record levels" isn't really that impressive.
4% unemployment is better than 10% unemployment. Falling wages is much better than NO wages. I also believe the wages were better in '06 than they are today, especially if you consider the 18 million more people that are actually making wages.
Besides, as unemployment falls, wages will fall to some degree with it. High wage earners are usually not the ones that are unemployed. A falling unemployment rate means that people who were unemployed are finding jobs. People that find jobs who are not working at the time usually take what they can get and usually don't demand what they were making at their last job.
Falling wages does not mean that people who made X at job Y are making less than X today at job Y. Wages rarely fall for people who are working the same job. However, when people change jobs or leave unemployment, they are likely to make less money starting out.
Low taxes do NOT mean low government revenue. The US government pulled in more money AFTER Bush's tax cuts than any time in history. (unfortunately, they spent even more, but that's a different story)
The continued strong growth in revenues reflects the record profits corporations have been recording in recent years and low levels of unemployment, which means more Americans are working and paying taxes.
(It's amazing how short our memories are. All I hear about today is how bad the economy was under Bush, yet from 2003-2007, we were booming, but no one care remember anything more than 2 years back)
It seems like you've been drinking too much media Kool Aid without bothering to do your own research or critical thinking. All well thought out analysis points to Iran wanting nuclear weapons as a defensive measure. Despite what you see portrayed on television, the Iranians are a bit smarter than you seem to give them credit for. Nuking Israel would result in the total annihilation of Iran. Even if they manage to get a nuke to Hamas, nuclear forensics are very advanced these days and it would be traced back to Iran.
Nuclear weapons, by their very nature are NOT defensive. Land mines are defensive. Bunkers are defensive. Nuclear weapons are a means of attack, thus offensive.
Nuking Israel would result in the total annihilation of Iran.
All part of the big plan. The fifth imam, or whichever number he is, can not return until the "world" is destroyed, much as Jesus will not return until Israel is destroyed. The difference is that Christians are not trying to destroy Israel to hasten the Second Coming.
You do realize that Colbert more fully skewers the right than Stewart does, right? Stewart is fairly non partisan. Colbert, on the other hand builds his whole shtick on mocking the right. Colbert is very serious, but he is so good at what he does that idiots on the right think he is on their side! Amazing.
I agree with most of what you say. However, I had an idiot on the left try to tell me that Colbert was seriously on the right side of the spectrum. He literally couldn't see the difference between the parody and the real thing. He thought Colbert was "The Daily Show" for conservatives. So the "right" does not have a monopoly on the idiot market.
And that is actually part of the problem. There are people who only get their news from shows like these. While Steward and Colbert base their comedy on real world events, they only show the parts that support their side. It wouldn't really be funny to see the whole clip that contains comments that nullifies the joke, and the whole point of these shows is to be funny. Unfortunately, people see real clips from real news shows and think they are getting real news.
It's not S/C's fault. They are doing their job. It's sad because people just don't care enough to get the whole story behind the joke.
I suggest we give the same people a new survey, but ask about "a government ban on mature-themed video games" and see how many people are still for it.
The only good reason to "ban" violent video games is because kids might play it. If kids can't buy the game without a parent, you take away that excuse to ban the game from the do-gooders.
I have little hope that will help anything considering I've seen a woman in EB with her 8 year old (my estimation) in tow complaining to the clerk how violent and horrible some of the games they sell are. 15 minutes later (after 10 minutes of pestering from her son) she was buying the kid Grand Theft Auto.
It's not up to you to agree or disagree with it. That's the parent's right to make the decision and since she bought it for her kid knowing what was in it, it's now her responsibility. When her kid pulls his car over to kick prostitutes, she is going to have a hard time taking the game maker to court since she knowingly bought the game. It might even help further if a big label was on the cover of the game that says something to the affect of "Hey, mom! This game has whore kicking!"
How about we make it illegal to show kids rated R movies first. Or even better, how about the government quits trying to tell parents what media is or is not appropriate for their children. This is just comic books all over again
Actually, this would be government forcing parents to be responsible for what their kids see. This is making it so that the kids can't buy this stuff without an adult (hopefully a parent). No one is saying kids can't own these games. They just want to make sure the parents are aware of it.
"Do you think parents should be responsible for preventing their children from accessing video games containing violent content?" I would bet you that those same 72% are going to say "yes" to that as well.
I agree! What better way to make the parents responsible than to make the parents buy the game.
So, my basic understanding is that a star will fuse elements up to iron, so what happened to all the other elements? Is a carbon diamond the only stable thing that formed?
I believe it depends on the size of the star. Stars of this size are simply not large enough to fuse anything beyond carbon. Once it hits carbon, that's it, it stops.
Christians believe in The New Covenant that changes "Eye for an Eye" to "Turn the Other Cheek".
So you must have been chanting "turn the other cheek" back in the lead-up to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or do you have some logical gymnastics that allow you to believe that starting two wars (one against a nation that had nothing to do with anything) was somehow Christ-like?
--Jeremy
"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's."
Are you recommending that we base our laws and foreign policy on The Bible? If not, then why would you suggest such a thing?
God gave man freedom. Our country respects freedom as a right "endowed by our Creator" If our country forces religion or religious morality, that God given freedom is stripped. So, government may be moral, but may not be moral for religious reasons.
The age is irrelevant. You claimed that Christianity is only "a religion that put 13 people in the hospital". I pointed out that Christianity has put many more than that in the grave. 400 years old still means that they were good New Testament Christians, the ones that had abandoned all that "eye for an eye" stuff, right?
Sorry, but your moral equivalence argument is bullshit. If you want to go back that far, then try this on...
White people enslaved black people about 150 years ago. Other black people helped capture those that were enslaved. So, both white people and black people are still guilty of those crimes against humanity and must be punished, not only for their abuses, but for their current hypocrisy by talking about freedom and tolerance.
Hell, for that matter, Europeans took land from Native Americans. I have Native American ancestors, as does my wife and therefor, my children. So, if you want to go back that far to show guilt, then the way I see it, you owe me whatever land you currently preside on plus a shitload of back rent plus interest.
No, the ethnic cleansing in Serbia was against Muslims in Kosovo.
Really? You mean that Muslims will produce all this uproar over burning Korans or drawing a cartoon of Mohamed, and they didn't say a word while Christians were raping and killing Muslims? Bullshit.
The U.S. is not a "religious state". However, 78% of Americans self-identify as Christian, and the Bush administration was overtly Christian. It may even be fair to call the U.S. a "Christian nation" or maybe "one nation under God"
Um... all major religions believe in "God". God is not only non-denominational, He belongs to no specific religion. So saying "One nation under God" is not a declaration of Christianity. It is a reflection of freedom of religion and an acknowledgment that there is a higher power than man or government from which rights are endowed.
Then you completely missed the point. I was citing it as an example of Christian hypocrisy. If a majority Christian nation does not actually follow the (apparent) teachings of Jesus and the New Testament when it matters, if you learnt nothing from his forgiving of his killers and his refusal to act against them, then what was the point of his sacrifice?
Morality may enter policy, but don't confuse morality with religion. For example, The Ten Commandments say "Do not murder", does that mean our laws against murder are based on the Ten Commandments?
So, you think that was the only violent Christian event, ever?
Albigensian Crusade [time.com]: Christian militia forces ordered by the Pope killed an estimated 1 million "heretics" simply for following a different interpretation of the Bible.
St. Bartholomew's Day massacre [wikipedia.org]: estimated upto 100,000 Protestants killed by Catholic mobs. What does the Pope do? Send the leader a blessed Golden Rose [wikipedia.org] and hang paintings of the massacre in the Vatican.
Um, can we get an example that is less than 400 years old? Thanks.
Really? Are you so sure that every single Christian in the world believes that? Given that it is only 15 years since Christian militias were massacring Muslims in Serbia and calling for "a Christian, Orthodox Serbia with no Muslims and no unbelievers", I somehow doubt that.
That quote you provide was from Mirko Jovi, while he as a founder of The White Eagles in Serbia, the group quickly left his control. While the White Eagles are suspected in ethnic cleansing, there is no evidence that they were influenced by religion after their founding. Nearly all of the ethnic cleansing I've seen has been against Albanians, because they refused to be ruled by Slobodan Miloevi, a Communist. As I'm sure you are well aware, Communists are atheists for the most part.
And where were all the Christians shouting for forgiveness and "turning the other cheek" after the twin towers were attacked? Where were all the Christians arguing to not invade Iraq (a country that had nothing to do with 9/11)?
I saw several. I remember the President, a Christian having several Muslims open various events with prayers.
You are correct, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. While many idiots believed it did, it was never an official reason other than 9/11 made the US realize that we were vulnerable to attack. If a guy in a cave can strike us, what could a guy with a country and an army do?
Peace and forgiveness and turning the other cheek sound great, but it's a lot harder to actually live up to those standards when it matters, isn't it?
As I'm sure you'll be one the first to argue, the US is not a religious state and religion has no effect on domestic or foreign policy.
Care to try again?
(I also find it hilarious that you would try to use 9/11 as an example of Christian intolerance)
Last night I watched My Trip to Al Qaeda. Lawrence Wright has spent more time with hands on research than anyone I have seen. It seemed, to me, his main point was the fact that radicalism feeds entirely on humiliation and anger - including the humiliation of the Islamic faith by the West. What really is the point here on burning a pile of Korans on 9/11 than to humiliate and anger the moderate and extreme Muslims. It's very distasteful. Trying not to sound like I am just quoting the movie (yet whole hardily agreeing to the message that) we should stand up for what America believes in - and stop playing our role in the story Bin Laden narrates - one of a holy war against the Muslim faith.
Whatever your point of view on the subject - this documentary is definately a must see.
For starters, no matter what our actions are, the story that Bin Laden narrates will not change.
Next, on your point that burning the Koran will humiliate and anger the moderate and extreme Muslims, the problem is that NOT doing stuff has the same effect. For example, the guy who wants to build the Ground Zero mosque is saying that denying the mosque will produce the same reaction as the Danish Mohamed cartoons. What's next? Can we expect violent protests if one day we reject Sharia law Dearborn Mi? So, it's no longer what we do that can incite Muslims to violence, but we are encouraging them to the point where they are attempting to dictate our actions under the threat of the same violent actions.
"If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse," Rauf told CNN. "The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack." --Imam Rauf
Frankly, while I find the idea of burning any book abhorrent I think that spitting in the face of these radicals of Islam is more important than not. Either bring your religion to 21st century and join the rest of us or shut the hell up.
There are over 1 billion Muslims in the world, and several million living in the Western world. What percentage of them will resort to violence as a form of protest when these books are burned? Even a few thousand people is several orders of magnitude less than 1%. So it's hardly representative of the Muslim world. In a similar vein, Christians burnt down the Saint Michel theater in Paris, putting 13 people in hospital, just to protest against the film "The Last Temptation of Christ", so it's hardly like Islam has a monopoly on its followers wanting to restrict freedom of speech. (The Bible actually insists that blasphemers" should be killed by Christian congregations: "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying... he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.")
So, you're comparing a religion that put 13 people in the hospital to a religion that kills hundreds of thousands? Muslims have posted more than 13 beheadings on the Internet, all in the name of Islam.
Also, you should really get educated before you start quoting the Bible. The quote you used...:
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying... he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:13-16
is from the Old Testament, yet, you attribute it to Christians, who no longer follow the Old Testament. Christians believe in The New Covenant that changes "Eye for an Eye" to "Turn the Other Cheek". Unfortunately, I don't think facts will change your opinion.
We have shied away from attacking superstition because much of the world wasn't grown up enough to handle the debate.
Not true. We've seen the Cross dumped into a jar of urine, and Mother Theresa painted using elephant dung, all in the name of art. Of course, we've also seen Jesus with a talk show and downloading porn on South Park. There is no shortage of art/culture mocking Christianity.
But when it comes it Islam, people become cowards. Take the President talking about the Ground Zero Mosque project:
‘As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country,’... ‘That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.’
But when it comes to a Christian Church staging a protest:
"If he's listening, I hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans that this country has been built on the notion of freedom and religious tolerance."
It's not that people are afraid to debate religion. They are afraid of Islam. People talk tough when criticizing groups that believe in turning the other cheek, but are not so enthusiastic when it comes to criticism groups that will try to kill them for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I have a little girl, so I'm not sterile, whatever that's worth. And I've heard the same studies you've mentioned, but right now, my biggest fear is keeping my cell phone in my front pocket. In other words, there are lots of things that make you sterile.
I'm not saying that exposure to DU doesn't lower fertility, but judging by the rate my company was spitting out rug-rats, it must not be that big of an issue.
Nice typing with you.
And, your certainly welcome. As our drill Sgt's used to say... "Don't thank me, thank my recruiter" :). However, I knew going in that I wouldn't necessarily be fighting for my freedom or even the freedom of any Americans. I knew I'd be in some foreign land, trying to spread freedom. So, although I am patriotic, what I did was not necessarily so. It was a pleasure seeing the gratitude on the faces of the Kuwaitis and the college money and VA home loans are nice to.
Laters
Unless you happen to be a tank crew sitting on top of, and in direct contact with, a cache of shells, the health risk is generally considered inconsequential. And even for the tank crews, the risk is considered small but acceptable.
I was a M1A1 crewman for a few years and spent much of my service surrounded by DU enhanced armor. I also spent a about a year in theater with a full ammo well of DU rounds.
DU at room temperature has no known health effects. However, if you were to eat the penetrator of a sabot round or try to weld through the frontal armor of a M1, you may suffer some ill effects. But if you're willing to do all that, you are looking for such a result.
It's burning DU that causes the health risks and I don't believe that it's related to the radio activity of DU. It has more to do with the fact that you are inhaling heavy metals in gas form that causes health issues.
I served with many soldiers who took part in the first gulf war in the 90's. I saw the "Gulf War Syndrome" effects that were suffered in a few of them. But these same effects were also suffered by personnel that were not armored crewman or spent any time around DU at all. This leads me, in my not-so-expert opinion, to believe that the problem was not with DU, but some other factor. It could have been the barrage of shots given before deployment, some strange sand flea living there or, like you mentioned, waking every morning with a poncho covered in oil from the fires there (imagine what was in their lungs!) I went there a year after the Desert Storm and suffered no health issues as a result. The only difference between what I went through and what the first group saw was possibly the shots taken and most of the oil fires were out by the time I got there.
I'm not disagreeing with your post at all. It's spot on. I just wanted to share my experience with DU and the time I spent around it. I don't get to do it often.
Besides, the United States is allowed to use DEPLETED uranium in their tank shells and conventional explosives. Why not Iran as well?
FTFY! Depleted Uranium is not radioactive, although it is fairly toxic when burned... but then again, so is a DU sabot round heading at you a few clicks per second. It's a weapon. Toxicity is not really a concern.
It shouldn't be surprising to anyone that Iran is building up their defenses in preperation of possible Israeli terror attacks.
"Iran should be wiped off the map"
Benjamin Netanyahu
And Iran has threatened to wipe Israel from history... Iran has called the US the "Great Satan"... The US called Iran part of the "Axis of Evil"... your point is?
Of course, because there is absolutely no relation between the Nazi's and Socialists. None whatsoever.
Now, plug your ears and repeat that over and over whenever someone tells you what Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei means.
It means a fascist douchebag co-opted a nice, grass roots organization to his own tyrannical means.
Kinda like Dick Armey and Glenn Beck.
Strange... and here I thought Glenn Beck was a Libertarian calling for LESS government and is constantly preaching about his fear of tyrannical government. So let's see. Either you're completely ignorant and totally speaking out your ass when you call Beck a Fascist or we're talking about two different Glenn Becks.
I think you're talking out your ass and just throwing around the biggest insult word you know about people you don't understand, yet have nothing but pure, white-hot hatred for. You call these people Fascist because they have done nothing to justify your hatred, so you have to make stuff up. It's easy to make yourself believe it because the hatred, or the result, is already there. You just need justification. Here is how it works:
1) You hate people who have an opinion different than your own.
2) You make up things in your head to justify that hatred (Beck is a Nazi, for example)
3) You believe it because you already hated Beck so much, him being a Nazi is not really a stretch, even though you completely fabricated it in your head.
(is there a ??? and profit in there?)
Oh, and Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei stands for "National Socialist German Workers' Party". Not that it matters as you simply won't believe a Nazi they have the word "Socialist" and "Worker's Party", right there in the name, because, you know, it doesn't fit your preconceived notions of what you hate (Nazi's) and what you don't hate (Socialism) and even the though the evidence slaps you in the face, you simply won't believe it because it's not what you believe.
Oh, and are you really saying that the Nazi's were nice people before Hitler took over? Seriously!??!
You were being ignorant. Comparing a fascist to a fascist is quasi reasonable, even if it is sort of absurd to imply a similar level of crime. But comparing somebody that's been regularly accused of being a socialist to a fascist just makes one a jack ass.
Of course, because there is absolutely no relation between the Nazi's and Socialists. None whatsoever.
Now, plug your ears and repeat that over and over whenever someone tells you what Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei means.
Congratulations on the first post.
Very difficult to do these days.
First Post is easy. A GOOD first post is hard. This guy nailed it.
Republican politicians advocate smaller government...except when it comes to invading your personal life.
Actually, conservatives, not necessarily "Republicans" simply want the federal government to follow the Constitution, limited by the 10th Amendment. That means less government when dealing with stuff like farm subsidies and corporate bailouts, and could mean more government with things specifically spelled out in the Constitution, like national security.
Anything not spelled out in the Constitution as a federal government power is a power belonging to the states... period!
And what about the financial crisis? Which would you rather have, Obama stealing thousands from the pockets of millionaires [huffingtonpost.com] or a downward spiral of economic peril that was the consequence of a presidential administration's pathological revulsion to reasonable regulation.
I remember the economy humming along extremely well until the Democrats took over congress. Remember, congress controls the purse strings, writes the budgets, and therefor runs the economy.
How quickly people forget...
Yes. How quickly we forget.
You mean artificialy booming due to the artificial stock boost morfine. The price for detoxing back to reality is extremely high, but yeah; it was totaly booming. NOT. It made the fscking economy weak as hell. Not to mention destroy it.
Oh hello new recession we're climbing out of.
Get lost.
You mean like the dow hitting 6000 in after 9-11? Is that be bubble you are talking about?
See: Laffer Curve.
And like most people who cite the Laffer Curve without really understanding what it is, you are missing the very basic fact (reflected in its actual name) that it is a CURVE. All the Laffer Curve represents is that there is some tax rate at which tax revenues are maximized. It doesn't state that it is a high or a low rate.
You are absolutely correct. Also, the optimum rate today may not be the optimum rate tomorrow. However, when taxes were lower, government revenues were higher, meaning that we are on the right side of the peak. ("right" meaning direction, not "correct")
Your cite to the august economics journal USA Today notwithstanding, the economy wasn't "booming" from 2003-2007; some people made a lot of money, but real wages fell during that time period. The illusion of prosperity isn't prosperity. And tax revenues generally rise every year outside a recession, so "record levels" isn't really that impressive.
4% unemployment is better than 10% unemployment. Falling wages is much better than NO wages. I also believe the wages were better in '06 than they are today, especially if you consider the 18 million more people that are actually making wages.
Besides, as unemployment falls, wages will fall to some degree with it. High wage earners are usually not the ones that are unemployed. A falling unemployment rate means that people who were unemployed are finding jobs. People that find jobs who are not working at the time usually take what they can get and usually don't demand what they were making at their last job.
Falling wages does not mean that people who made X at job Y are making less than X today at job Y. Wages rarely fall for people who are working the same job. However, when people change jobs or leave unemployment, they are likely to make less money starting out.
(sigh)
Low taxes do NOT mean low government revenue. The US government pulled in more money AFTER Bush's tax cuts than any time in history. (unfortunately, they spent even more, but that's a different story)
From USA Today, Feb 12, 2007:
The continued strong growth in revenues reflects the record profits corporations have been recording in recent years and low levels of unemployment, which means more Americans are working and paying taxes.
(It's amazing how short our memories are. All I hear about today is how bad the economy was under Bush, yet from 2003-2007, we were booming, but no one care remember anything more than 2 years back)
See: Laffer Curve.
It seems like you've been drinking too much media Kool Aid without bothering to do your own research or critical thinking. All well thought out analysis points to Iran wanting nuclear weapons as a defensive measure. Despite what you see portrayed on television, the Iranians are a bit smarter than you seem to give them credit for. Nuking Israel would result in the total annihilation of Iran. Even if they manage to get a nuke to Hamas, nuclear forensics are very advanced these days and it would be traced back to Iran.
Nuclear weapons, by their very nature are NOT defensive. Land mines are defensive. Bunkers are defensive. Nuclear weapons are a means of attack, thus offensive.
Nuking Israel would result in the total annihilation of Iran.
All part of the big plan. The fifth imam, or whichever number he is, can not return until the "world" is destroyed, much as Jesus will not return until Israel is destroyed. The difference is that Christians are not trying to destroy Israel to hasten the Second Coming.
You do realize that Colbert more fully skewers the right than Stewart does, right? Stewart is fairly non partisan. Colbert, on the other hand builds his whole shtick on mocking the right. Colbert is very serious, but he is so good at what he does that idiots on the right think he is on their side! Amazing.
I agree with most of what you say. However, I had an idiot on the left try to tell me that Colbert was seriously on the right side of the spectrum. He literally couldn't see the difference between the parody and the real thing. He thought Colbert was "The Daily Show" for conservatives. So the "right" does not have a monopoly on the idiot market.
And that is actually part of the problem. There are people who only get their news from shows like these. While Steward and Colbert base their comedy on real world events, they only show the parts that support their side. It wouldn't really be funny to see the whole clip that contains comments that nullifies the joke, and the whole point of these shows is to be funny. Unfortunately, people see real clips from real news shows and think they are getting real news.
It's not S/C's fault. They are doing their job. It's sad because people just don't care enough to get the whole story behind the joke.
I suggest we give the same people a new survey, but ask about "a government ban on mature-themed video games" and see how many people are still for it.
The only good reason to "ban" violent video games is because kids might play it. If kids can't buy the game without a parent, you take away that excuse to ban the game from the do-gooders.
I have little hope that will help anything considering I've seen a woman in EB with her 8 year old (my estimation) in tow complaining to the clerk how violent and horrible some of the games they sell are. 15 minutes later (after 10 minutes of pestering from her son) she was buying the kid Grand Theft Auto.
It's not up to you to agree or disagree with it. That's the parent's right to make the decision and since she bought it for her kid knowing what was in it, it's now her responsibility. When her kid pulls his car over to kick prostitutes, she is going to have a hard time taking the game maker to court since she knowingly bought the game. It might even help further if a big label was on the cover of the game that says something to the affect of "Hey, mom! This game has whore kicking!"
How about we make it illegal to show kids rated R movies first. Or even better, how about the government quits trying to tell parents what media is or is not appropriate for their children. This is just comic books all over again
Actually, this would be government forcing parents to be responsible for what their kids see. This is making it so that the kids can't buy this stuff without an adult (hopefully a parent). No one is saying kids can't own these games. They just want to make sure the parents are aware of it.
"Do you think parents should be responsible for preventing their children from accessing video games containing violent content?" I would bet you that those same 72% are going to say "yes" to that as well.
I agree! What better way to make the parents responsible than to make the parents buy the game.
So, my basic understanding is that a star will fuse elements up to iron, so what happened to all the other elements? Is a carbon diamond the only stable thing that formed?
I believe it depends on the size of the star. Stars of this size are simply not large enough to fuse anything beyond carbon. Once it hits carbon, that's it, it stops.
So you must have been chanting "turn the other cheek" back in the lead-up to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq? Or do you have some logical gymnastics that allow you to believe that starting two wars (one against a nation that had nothing to do with anything) was somehow Christ-like?
--Jeremy
"Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's."
Are you recommending that we base our laws and foreign policy on The Bible? If not, then why would you suggest such a thing?
God gave man freedom.
Our country respects freedom as a right "endowed by our Creator"
If our country forces religion or religious morality, that God given freedom is stripped.
So, government may be moral, but may not be moral for religious reasons.
The age is irrelevant. You claimed that Christianity is only "a religion that put 13 people in the hospital". I pointed out that Christianity has put many more than that in the grave. 400 years old still means that they were good New Testament Christians, the ones that had abandoned all that "eye for an eye" stuff, right?
Sorry, but your moral equivalence argument is bullshit. If you want to go back that far, then try this on...
White people enslaved black people about 150 years ago. Other black people helped capture those that were enslaved. So, both white people and black people are still guilty of those crimes against humanity and must be punished, not only for their abuses, but for their current hypocrisy by talking about freedom and tolerance.
Hell, for that matter, Europeans took land from Native Americans. I have Native American ancestors, as does my wife and therefor, my children. So, if you want to go back that far to show guilt, then the way I see it, you owe me whatever land you currently preside on plus a shitload of back rent plus interest.
No, the ethnic cleansing in Serbia was against Muslims in Kosovo.
Really? You mean that Muslims will produce all this uproar over burning Korans or drawing a cartoon of Mohamed, and they didn't say a word while Christians were raping and killing Muslims? Bullshit.
The U.S. is not a "religious state". However, 78% of Americans self-identify as Christian, and the Bush administration was overtly Christian. It may even be fair to call the U.S. a "Christian nation" or maybe "one nation under God"
Um... all major religions believe in "God". God is not only non-denominational, He belongs to no specific religion. So saying "One nation under God" is not a declaration of Christianity. It is a reflection of freedom of religion and an acknowledgment that there is a higher power than man or government from which rights are endowed.
Then you completely missed the point. I was citing it as an example of Christian hypocrisy. If a majority Christian nation does not actually follow the (apparent) teachings of Jesus and the New Testament when it matters, if you learnt nothing from his forgiving of his killers and his refusal to act against them, then what was the point of his sacrifice?
Morality may enter policy, but don't confuse morality with religion. For example, The Ten Commandments say "Do not murder", does that mean our laws against murder are based on the Ten Commandments?
So, you think that was the only violent Christian event, ever?
Albigensian Crusade [time.com]: Christian militia forces ordered by the Pope killed an estimated 1 million "heretics" simply for following a different interpretation of the Bible.
St. Bartholomew's Day massacre [wikipedia.org]: estimated upto 100,000 Protestants killed by Catholic mobs. What does the Pope do? Send the leader a blessed Golden Rose [wikipedia.org] and hang paintings of the massacre in the Vatican.
Um, can we get an example that is less than 400 years old? Thanks.
Really? Are you so sure that every single Christian in the world believes that? Given that it is only 15 years since Christian militias were massacring Muslims in Serbia and calling for "a Christian, Orthodox Serbia with no Muslims and no unbelievers", I somehow doubt that.
That quote you provide was from Mirko Jovi, while he as a founder of The White Eagles in Serbia, the group quickly left his control. While the White Eagles are suspected in ethnic cleansing, there is no evidence that they were influenced by religion after their founding. Nearly all of the ethnic cleansing I've seen has been against Albanians, because they refused to be ruled by Slobodan Miloevi, a Communist. As I'm sure you are well aware, Communists are atheists for the most part.
And where were all the Christians shouting for forgiveness and "turning the other cheek" after the twin towers were attacked? Where were all the Christians arguing to not invade Iraq (a country that had nothing to do with 9/11)?
I saw several. I remember the President, a Christian having several Muslims open various events with prayers.
You are correct, Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. While many idiots believed it did, it was never an official reason other than 9/11 made the US realize that we were vulnerable to attack. If a guy in a cave can strike us, what could a guy with a country and an army do?
Peace and forgiveness and turning the other cheek sound great, but it's a lot harder to actually live up to those standards when it matters, isn't it?
As I'm sure you'll be one the first to argue, the US is not a religious state and religion has no effect on domestic or foreign policy.
Care to try again?
(I also find it hilarious that you would try to use 9/11 as an example of Christian intolerance)
Last night I watched My Trip to Al Qaeda. Lawrence Wright has spent more time with hands on research than anyone I have seen. It seemed, to me, his main point was the fact that radicalism feeds entirely on humiliation and anger - including the humiliation of the Islamic faith by the West. What really is the point here on burning a pile of Korans on 9/11 than to humiliate and anger the moderate and extreme Muslims. It's very distasteful. Trying not to sound like I am just quoting the movie (yet whole hardily agreeing to the message that) we should stand up for what America believes in - and stop playing our role in the story Bin Laden narrates - one of a holy war against the Muslim faith.
Whatever your point of view on the subject - this documentary is definately a must see.
For starters, no matter what our actions are, the story that Bin Laden narrates will not change.
Next, on your point that burning the Koran will humiliate and anger the moderate and extreme Muslims, the problem is that NOT doing stuff has the same effect. For example, the guy who wants to build the Ground Zero mosque is saying that denying the mosque will produce the same reaction as the Danish Mohamed cartoons. What's next? Can we expect violent protests if one day we reject Sharia law Dearborn Mi? So, it's no longer what we do that can incite Muslims to violence, but we are encouraging them to the point where they are attempting to dictate our actions under the threat of the same violent actions.
"If we move from that location, the story will be that the radicals have taken over the discourse," Rauf told CNN. "The headlines in the Muslim world will be that Islam is under attack."
--Imam Rauf
Frankly, while I find the idea of burning any book abhorrent I think that spitting in the face of these radicals of Islam is more important than not. Either bring your religion to 21st century and join the rest of us or shut the hell up.
There are over 1 billion Muslims in the world, and several million living in the Western world. What percentage of them will resort to violence as a form of protest when these books are burned? Even a few thousand people is several orders of magnitude less than 1%. So it's hardly representative of the Muslim world. In a similar vein, Christians burnt down the Saint Michel theater in Paris, putting 13 people in hospital, just to protest against the film "The Last Temptation of Christ", so it's hardly like Islam has a monopoly on its followers wanting to restrict freedom of speech. (The Bible actually insists that blasphemers" should be killed by Christian congregations: "And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ... he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him.")
So, you're comparing a religion that put 13 people in the hospital to a religion that kills hundreds of thousands? Muslims have posted more than 13 beheadings on the Internet, all in the name of Islam.
Also, you should really get educated before you start quoting the Bible. The quote you used...:
And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying ... he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him. Leviticus 24:13-16
is from the Old Testament, yet, you attribute it to Christians, who no longer follow the Old Testament. Christians believe in The New Covenant that changes "Eye for an Eye" to "Turn the Other Cheek". Unfortunately, I don't think facts will change your opinion.
We have shied away from attacking superstition because much of the world wasn't grown up enough to handle the debate.
Not true. We've seen the Cross dumped into a jar of urine, and Mother Theresa painted using elephant dung, all in the name of art. Of course, we've also seen Jesus with a talk show and downloading porn on South Park. There is no shortage of art/culture mocking Christianity.
But when it comes it Islam, people become cowards. Take the President talking about the Ground Zero Mosque project:
‘As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country,’ ... ‘That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.’
But when it comes to a Christian Church staging a protest:
"If he's listening, I hope he understands that what he's proposing to do is completely contrary to our values as Americans that this country has been built on the notion of freedom and religious tolerance."
It's not that people are afraid to debate religion. They are afraid of Islam. People talk tough when criticizing groups that believe in turning the other cheek, but are not so enthusiastic when it comes to criticism groups that will try to kill them for it.