Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 4/7/11 12:32 PM, JoS wrote: Yeah, but most people seem to recognize that the licensing process is a good thing. Also the gun licence fee for renewals is currently being waived. Finally it is not a right to own guns, it is a privilege, just like it is a privilege to drive a car.

Yeah! It's not a right to defend yourself! It's a privilege!

At 4/5/11 11:49 PM, Bacchanalian wrote: You are aware however, that it was claimed by JordanD, and the story was exhibited as proof of it. Not only that, but the post to which you replied as if it were in err, was a criticism of claim 3. And in your criticism, you went so far as to say that, "believing you'll beat cancer is as important as anything else in beating cancer," and then accusing the-universe of diminishing the role of belief, when he was apparently in much the same boat as you now allege to be: skeptical that the woman healed herself by will alone.

You are aware, however, that I am not convinced this happened. It's not something I have made a secret of. I have said, more than two dozen times that my BS detector is tingling. However, IF (and I usually capitalize if too) it is true...then the claim is undeniable.

But I have also made allowances that error could've happened, and that tests could've been misinterpreted.

Then, shortly before starting to play up your measured skepticism, you said, "If a woman refused treatment, and got better, for lack of a better term, she DID will the cancer out of her body. [...] This happened, no one is contradicting it. Therefore, this case is proof you are wrong. Until someone has a better explaination, this is solid."

I dislike the (...) as it cuts out that I felt the need to look it up. Looking something up and saying I went to over a hundred sites hardly makes me seem like someone who said "Holy crap, I want to believe this! Sign me up for full force Dittohead status!" Indeed, to an honest person, the fact that I kept looking, and couldn't find anything claiming she was lying would have to lead them to conclude that I wasn't trying to prove the story right. Cutting out the things in the (...) makes me seem far more onboard than the actual comment does. And I think you know that. And I think the (...) was meant to achieve that.

Yes. It really adds a good bit of murk to the conversation.

It adds even more when I point out that it happened before anyone called bullshit on me. And that it was the very first time I actually looked at and commented on his link. "Faith helps" is hardly equivalent to "OK, I looked at this and tried to do reasearch, and I just can't prove it wrong."

And you know it. We're treading pretty deep into you trying to twist my words here.

If by true you already mean to imply that it as been shown to be true, then your statement is a truism, and I don't really see what point it's making.

Shrug. That doesn't surprise me. Pardon me for saying so, but you're in a far worse position than I am. Even if I had signed on board for this (and I didn't) like you are saying, I went from 3-2-1. It is therefore dishonest to claim that I went from claiming "Hey man, faith is cool and stuff" to suddenly claiming it could cure cancer. You've got a massive error in your logic. And I pointed it out. And now, instead of simply saying that you got it wrong, you're digging deeper.

It's dishonest.

At 4/5/11 12:33 PM, SolInvictus wrote: believing cures cancer =/= staying happy helps cope with disease

But here's the problem...no one has made that claim. Indeed, this challenge was made because TU made the claim that faith doesn't help. A single case shoots that down, if it is true.

so why aren't we assuming this is divine intervention?

Witty requires some sort of backing.

while its fun and all to hurl insults back and forth, this is hardly the first i've heard of "willed" healing; where if you believe strongly enough it will go away. methods vary (red flag) but all present the same narrative: diagnosis, despair, unsuccessful treatment, meditation/visualization/prayer and cancer is gone. this goes well beyond simply taking care of yourself because you feel good about yourself, which i'm fairly sure you're aware of.
being able to defeat cancer with your mind and without costly and side-effect ridden treatments is one hell of an advancement in medicine if real. if not, its pretty dangerous to encourage people to do something that does little more than make you feel/take care of yourself better, as opposed to seeking proven medical treatment.

Again, this was never the argument, and, if you wish to be honest, you know that. I've been pretty measured in my responses, and have been relatively nuanced. After awhile of reading uninformed, stupid comments that misunderstand basic terms, I tend to get tired of repeating myself and write the person off as a moron. In TU's case, it is exceptionally deserved.

The merits of the case cannot be argued. As even the most skeptical sites I have found agree, the facts are conclusive. She was diagnosed with cancer. She refused treatment. Later she was found to be cancer free. As I myself seem to lean, this woman may have had a genetic tolerance to cancer. Or it may have been benign. Or whatever else.

considering the fact that there are many cases where cancer treatment is impossible, there is plenty of opportunity for testing of this lady's hypothesis (and if shes on to something, god know how many lives can been saved with little to no monetary or resource input [i'm assuming you don't believe in some big-pharma conspiracy like jordan]).

To do any sort of repeat study, we'd have to poke and prod the woman first. If she is indeed telling the truth, I personally believe there is something genetically special about her, or benign about her cancer, that makes her case different than the average. Trying to recreate this has 100% chance of leading to death, no matter what the merits of her case are.

Look, if you want skepticism, you don't have to look far. I'm on board. This has me sniffing for the odors of human feces. But the more I look into skeptics claiming they've seen her case files...but she must be rare, the more uncertain I am. I pegged this as a stupid lie...and I'm wavering. And I'm rather hard to convince. But, at the same time, if this is a medical error (completely plausible), there is simply no way to test it that doesn't lead to dead people with sheets over them. I'd rather call the lady a miracle (one that shouldn't even try to be repeated) than have 20 dead on my conscience.

At 4/5/11 10:29 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: I have a feeling those children that got "sacrificed" were really unwanted. As usual, people were using the name of a god as an excuse to do things they wanted to do anyway.

They didn't have abortions back then, after all. Drought comes, blame it on god, kill one of those kids you can't feed, and all of a sudden the drought's not so bad.

While "I Gotta Feeling" is a great song, it's poor debate. Sacrifice was generally organized by the religious leader. Lots of parents weren't exactly thrilled to kill their kids. In many religions it was a requirement that parents sacrifice one a household.

Ritualistic sacrifice for the religion was rarely a private ordeal. It usually involved the whole community, and was demanded, even on personal levels, by the religious order.

The word "Christian" just means "Christ-like" as in, agreeing with Christ's teachings such as the morals taught in the beatitudes. The whole doctrine of "salvation" was actually a method for the rehabilitation of the incorigible, not a promise of heaven. Those doctrines were espoused by Paul, who, frankly, was a heretic who never even met Christ in person but used his name to form the Catholic church.

Well, no. "Christian" means followers of Christ. Many Jews also taught Christ's morals, or at least some of them. Considering that Christ was put to death for claiming to be the son of God, and that's heresy in Judaism, anyone following Christ had to do a little more soul searching than "I'm poor, and I'd like to receive the Kingdom of Heaven". And, yes, Christ's teachings did indeed promise heaven. It did not start with Paul.

You don't seem to understand Christianity very well.

I realize it's rare to find a practicing christian these days that doesn't believe in christ's divinity, but they were quite common in the early days of the church.... until they were wiped out by Paul's Catholic armies of converted Roman soldiers in the name of heresy. That's why they call it the "mystery of the Holy Trinity"; because it doesn't make sense either Biblically or logically. Christ didn't only deny his divinity in the New Testament; he denied even being a morally good person. He constantly refered to himself as the "Son of Man" and reiterated that he wasn't doing anything anybody else couldn't do.

Actually, it was virtually impossible to find a Christian who didn't believe in Christ's divinity before the Catholic church started. After all, you had to go against your own faith and embrace a man who had just been killed for espousing his beliefs. Christ was an enemy of both the Jewish and Roman state, and simply following his teachings were enough to get you killed. AGAIN, you're clearly lacking in knowledge about the roots of the religion.

Christianity is much more about recognizing and addressing the inherently flawed nature of humanity than it is about heaven and eternal life. However, promises of heaven and eternal life are much more useful militarily, so those are the doctrines that get emphasized, even though they were mainly espoused by a "disciple" that only ever met Christ in a "vision."

This simply isn't possible for anyone who has read the Bible to suggest. Christ repeatedly spoke of the kingdom of heaven. He even promised it to the poor of spirit. (The first of the beattitudes you claim to have read). Jesus spoke far more of the afterlife than Paul did. And Paul focused much more on Earth. You are quite backwards here.

Sorry, you're rather clueless on this subject.

At 4/5/11 12:51 PM, Warforger wrote: Um you do realize we know only about 1% of the overall mythology after the whole library of it was burned all except a few books which survived so there could be more to the story.

There is NOTHING to support your claim. You made something that goes against everything we know. The counter claim is that "perhaps we don't know everything".

Pardon me if that's not convincing.

Furthermore: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis#Greco-
Roman_world

You understand that the Greeks and the Romans are different right?

Other then say tribal times and ancient times when it was used for explanation of the world......Other then Roman empire of course.

And the "bearers of that knowledge" assumed power. Many of them claimed to be able to channel the Gods.

Religion has been used less for power in AD than it was in BC.

At 4/5/11 11:29 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Unsolved murder. Gun found year later in dumpster. Ballistics match. Gun traced via registration to husband of victim. Prosecution now has evidence to convict husband, where none may have existed before.

Oh be real. A gun is found in a dumpster a year after a crime and is run against a year old murder? What are the real odds of that?

What happens if there are other prints on the weapon? Goodness this is silly.

How would registering incarcerate an innocent person more than anything else would?

Because the automatic assumption is...if this person's gun killed this other person...the owner is responsible. There's simply no other way to pretend that a registry helps.

At 4/5/11 02:19 AM, MrFlopz wrote: Say a small group of terrorists fire rockets indiscriminately at the Israeli border from a civilian location. How should Israel respond? The strategy seems to be to hitting back with an airstrike despite civilian casualties. It could be argued that these casualties are military necessities because stopping the terrorists from attacking again is the main objective. My question is this: Does bombing civilian locations actually decrease terrorist attacks against Israel?

The line defining who is and is not a terrorist is not clearly drawn. You cannot simply bomb an area until the terrorist threat is eliminated.

But, to be truthful, when someone is under attack, their goal is to get the attack to stop. If I grab a kid and start firing a machine gun at you until you kill me...you will either kill me or die. And, in self preservation, the kid will not be much of a concern.

It's very much the same thing on a national level.

At 4/4/11 04:52 PM, The-universe wrote: You don't duplicate the results, you duplicate and analyse the tests and observations to see if the result and the conclusion is accurate.

I wish I could just write this off as ignorance, but it's not. Peer review is the process of reviewing everything, step by step, from the first process to the last. That means the experiment is recreated.

Right or wrong, there is no way to review this. If the original test was wrong, under the guidelines you set up above, I have to use that. Unless the doctor's test was obviously deficient, there is no way for me to determine if he lied or mixed up samples or made a mistake. Whatever. The samples are gone. One way or another, she doesn't have cancer now. Unless the doctor made an obvious medical mistake and chronicled it in great detail, there is no way to even TRY to analyze it.

It's beyond the realm of belief that a doctor would make a mistake, and then write his mistake down, and never try to correct it. It defies common logic.

And you don't understand scrutiny of a bold claim that this woman has managed to cure breast cancer with no other form of treatment whatsoever.

I do. And you're too stupid to see that I am skeptical myself (despite me saying it more than 2 dozen times). Yet, you just keep claiming it didn't happen. And you're too stupid to understand the logic behind why I am saying that what you want to do is ridiculous.

It just kinda boils down to you being stupid.

But you've just said "What you are describing has already been done. Tens of thousands of people have looked into her story." How can tens of thousands of people analyse her records if it doesn't go into detail?

.....Huh? So the new claim is, even though people have looked into it and are convinced, since I personally am unable to access her medical records myself (which is a breach of federal law), that these other people are lying? Are you mentally deficient? Since the news blurb posted doesn't go into gory detail no one looked into it? I can't even understand what idiocy you're trying to convey here.

That doesn't answer the paragraph you're replying to. I asked for:
1. What are bodily chemicals/process are created through "will-power"?
2. How do chemicals/processes destroy cancer cells?
3. If related to the immune system, what part is directly responsible and how does this process work?

You have done none of these, your paragraph basically explains that someone who wishes to survive for prolonged periods of time will less likely abuse their body.

Hmmm. Everytime your argument really sucks, you claim I didn't address something. Yet, of course, I did address those, or at least the logical versions of those. I'm sorry if you fail to see how eating while terribly sick can help over not eating...but if you don't get that, you won't get much of anything...which kind seems to be the trend. "Yea, yea. I get it. A person who has a better outlook does more to try to survive. But how does doing what your doctor tells you to...help you survive?"

Intelligent person: Really?

So now you know the events of my own anecdotal accounts? Wow, that's just funny. I'm scrutinising the cancer woman's account and you're scrutinising mine? Way to play a consistent game.

Because her version happened and yours didn't. Because she is, at worst, a gullible fool, and you are making shit up to support your non-existant case. Because her doctor gave her two tests, the first which said she had cancer, and the second which said she didn't, and because no doctor ever tells a guy he's pregnant.

Bring something intelligent and honest to the table, or shut up. I'm tired of dealing with an intellectual halfwit who just keeps claiming "I'm right!" and using nothing to back it up.

At 4/4/11 08:49 AM, Bacchanalian wrote: So...

1. Someone on a self destructive bent could probably benefit from a change of attitude.

... abstracts to...

2. Attitude (faith) helps.

... gets reappropriated to...

3. Cancer will leave my body because I believe it will and/or want it to.

Something is a bit off here.

Well, yes, something is a bit off there. Because 3 was never claimed by me. And I have repeatedly said I am skeptical of this story. However, if the story is true, it is proof that faith can cure you. I see no way around that. Beyond that, I argued 2 was a generally accepted concept. (As someone who has gone through cancer with 6 family members and heard HUNDREDS of doctors in 3 states give the same advice, not to mention countless techs, social workers, etc...I've got a tad bit of experience in hearing the same thing over and over from medical care professionals.) Finally, when asked how it could be possible that positive attitude could help, I listed multiple reasons, of which 1 was listed.

So what is a bit off is taking a claim I never made, reversing the arguments to claim I ramped up from 1-3, instead of claiming 2 then arguing 1 to back up my case.

Seems the error is all yours, and there's no way it wasn't deliberate.

That was pretty simple.

I got mauled by invisible cats...

Ah, the two tactics of a dishonest debater. 1. Distort what the person said, when they said it, how it was said, and in what order. 2. Make up a moronic counter story to pretend that all of their valid points are wrong.

Screw off you lying twerp.

At 4/5/11 04:43 AM, JoS wrote: YOu may not register your land every year, but you do pay property tax on it every year, also currently there is no fee for registering a firearm. So whats your excuse now, its free?

Again, that's not relevant. Because there is no yearly tax on owning a gun it is ok?

What if paying yearly tax on property is bad?

Non sequiter.

At 4/4/11 12:44 PM, FUNKbrs wrote: Why do you think biblical christians and jews spent all their time bad-mothing idolators? If idols were a valid form of worship, what need would there be for the new Judaeo-Christian God?

Well, a lot of the reason was that people were sacrificing their children to idols. Christians and Jews were appalled by this and sought to stop it. The Judeo-Christian morality led more to the opposition of these idols than the command against idols itself.

Also, I think it's hilarious when Protestants don't realize Catholics are considered Christian too. If you really want to get down to the nitty gritty, Islam believes the teachings of Christ, just not his divinity, making them, technically, a Christian sect.

Well, no. Because ascribing a partner to God in Islam is heretical. Much as we listen to a guy today and say "man he makes some good points", believing in what someone says is not assigning them divinity. Muslims claim Jesus never claimed to be divine and thus, all Christians are blasphemers.

At 4/4/11 01:43 PM, Warforger wrote: No you don't, that's just what the Jewish tribes did. Before them it actually used to be integrating all the religions people would find, like say Greek Mythology would include Egyptian Gods like Isis as part of their religion. There's also Norse stones which are said to have stories of Loki a Norse God interacting with Jesus. This was of course during the time when religion was used as an explanation for the unknown not a tool for power.

As a huge mythology buff, this is complete fabrication. There were no Egyptian Gods in Greek mythology. The various Gods that corresponded to the same attributes were always completely different between these two mythologies. Norse warriors were hardly incorporating Christ in their murals.

There has never been a time in history when religion was not used for power.

Not a single thing you said above was correct.

At 4/4/11 04:08 PM, Ytaker wrote: You also don't provide any source for the claim that his preachers told him other religious were inferior. If a priest taught him that jews are inferior then that would be evidence that christianity influenced hitler.

Well, of course his pastors told him Judaism was inferior to Christianity. It's impossible to be Christian and not believe that Judaism is inferior to Christianity. Much like it is impossible to be a liberal and not think you're right over a conservative.

If two belief systems clash on something, one is right and one is wrong. Both sides teach that they are right, and thus that they are superior. Whichever one is actually right...is correct.

Now, to move on. Would hearing that being a Christian is superior to being a Jew cause the Holocaust? Well, no. Of course not. Anymore than listening to Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken deride the opposition will justify murder. Being right is not a justification to wantonly kill.

At 4/4/11 07:18 AM, Gario wrote: Already addressed when I said punishment for that particular crime should be administered. Try to respond after reading the entire argument next time and save yourself the embarrassment.

There's no embarassment. Your argument was foolish on every level. We are in a foreign country with UN backing as a response to attacks against us. We have every right to be there. And, while we are there, we can protect our citizens and our UN delegates with all military force. Of course, even had you been right, it would still be illegal under Afghanistan law and immoral. But even on a jurisdiction level, you're beyond your scope.

Then let them take care of it. Again, aside from those that rallied the troops to kill the UN members (that is our business, as it breaks international law), murder in the Middle East is not our business. As much as I'd love to indite Karzai for his role in this, that's considered an act of war... not something we need in that area right now.

What does Karzai have to do with it? Do you have any clue what in the heck you're talking about?

How is that even close to a valid response? What the hell are you talking about?

It's called mockery. Your response was moronic. See above for the six times I've addressed this.

Yes, there is. Hey, I can argue that way too, if you want. Try giving a reason next time.

Um, I did. It's neat to take a sentence and pretend there was nothing before or after it, but I explained it quite succinctly. And, there's not a single person who can argue with the argument I gave. You'll forgive me if I repeatedly skip all your responses saying "nope".

Let's abstract what you're saying for a second. One party believes something, and if others don't follow it then they die. Our party believes that others should believe whatever they want (which is a belief in itself)... and if others don't follow it then they die. In this case, we're not fighting to protect the innocent, or anything like that (as can easily be shown by statements earlier in this thread). We're fighting to pass on our beliefs or pluralistic tolerance. We're proposing to kill people to enforce our belief in this thread. That is absolutely no different than the people that kill in order to enforce their own beliefs.

Of course it's different. Your little dance here doesn't make any sense. Party A says "I get to kill party B because they disagree with me!" Party C says "No you don't, they have a right to disagree with you." These two viewpoints aren't remotely comparable, and only an idiot would claim otherwise. It's no different than says that a woman who uses violence to defend herself from rape, or a third party that uses violence to defend someone from being raped is as bad as a violent rapist. After all...they all use violence!

Yet, this is idiocy that even a 6 year old raises an eyebrow at. The person resisting rape has done nothing wrong, nor has the good samaritan who defended her. The rapist did. The rapist is using violence to take someone's rights. The other two are using violence to defend someone's rights.

Under this absolutely empty headed argument that you're pushing, I have a right to kill you. After all, you came in with no facts and insulted my superior argument. It annoys me when petulant children attack their intellectual betters, and even more so when they don't even TRY to be logical or intelligent about it. I am offended that you equate people who are outraged at murder with murderers. So, under your retard logic, that makes killing you justified. All I have to do is claim I don't believe you have a right to life (kinda hinted at by the murder by the way), and it's a hard issue.

Sorry, I'm done arguing with you. If you can't see a difference, it means you're an idiot. It has nothing to do with anyone not presenting you the facts on the ground at this point. You're just a f*cking sociopath with no conscience and no intelligence.

At 4/4/11 01:21 PM, JoS wrote: Here is another example of when a gun registry is useful. A law abiding gun owner who registers his guns becomes depressed and threatens to kill himself. Men statistically are most likely to use a gun to kill themself. Police know exactly how many guns he has so they can seize them for safekeeping.

Well, that's a rather dumb argument. If the man is so believable that the police intervene...then he needs to be committed. Simply taking his guns is useless. He can stab himself, shoot himself with an unregistered or friend's gun, hang himself, drown himself, walk in front of a bus....the options are endless.

Taking a guys guns to keep him from killing himself is like seizing a guy's twinkies to make him lose weight. It makes little sense when you put more than 5 seconds thought into it.

And like I said before the registry can help trace a recovered stolen gun. To think without a registry people will keep track of serial numbers is ridiculous. My friend told me about a case where police were investigating a bunch of break ins at expensive cottages and 17 large LCD TVs were stolen, and only 4 the owners had their serial numbers, and most of them got it from the store after the fact.

Of course, the first thing gun thieves do after a theft is to remove the serial numbers. Considering no guns are made without them, and most guns recovered from crimes have no serial numbers....hmm....

This too is mushy thinking.

I was thinking about this the other day, is most people;s aversion to the registry really based on the fact they don't want to be bothered with having to register the guns, or the cost, rather than the privacy arguments? Cars are registered, voters are registered, land is registered, snowmobiles are registered and no one seems to have a problem with this, so why do people have problems with guns being registered?

Yet, the question should be: Is there a valid reason to register snowmobiles. Not to use snowmobiles to justify another registration.

At 4/4/11 06:25 AM, RightWingGamer wrote: Threats aren't protected speech.

But that's not a threat.

Granted, different rules apply to Presidents. They are royalty after all. But if someone buys a Mylie Cyrus sex doll and "rapes" it...Mylie Scyrus can't have them put in jail for rape. Or for threatening her.

Is what he wants to do stupid? Well, sure. Is it completely legal. Absolutely.

At 4/4/11 04:18 AM, KemCab wrote: The irony is that you just said that Islam should be eradicated. Of course, it -- and all other religions -- should be, but what you are essentially doing here is saying that you are "intolerant" to people who are "intolerant", while being "intolerant" to the beliefs of Muslims.

And all the while, there is nothing really wrong with being intolerant.

There actually is. For the sake of honesty, because it illustrates my point, I think you are an imbecile. That is my God given right to claim you are an imbecile. And that's where my rights end.

If I decide that I get to kill you for disagreeing with me, then I am crossing a line that society will (and should) put me away for. If I fail, I should be put in a little box. If I succeed, a death chamber.

Refusing to pretend you are remotely intelligent is one thing...denying your right to life is another.

Sorry if that hurts your feelings. But if you think that me wanting to punish mass murder and rape and hacking off of limbs is "intolerant"...well, you're a fucking moron. And if you think that people who shoot murderers to stop them from killing innocent people are are bad as the murderers...you are the single biggest imbecile I've ever met. Do society a favor and play in traffic, retard.

At 4/4/11 04:27 AM, Gario wrote: No it's not. It's called 'We're in a country where we don't belong enforcing laws that are not theirs'. At what point did we obtain the right to enforce our law in a foreign country? If it were in America then sure, send the offending party to prison, execute them (if it's legal), whatever - but we're talking about eradicating people in another country because we don't like what they're doing.

No. We're talking about killing people in a United States Protectorate for killing US approved missionaries for no reason. Let's point out that it is illegal, worldwide, to kill, attack, or impede missionary/humanitarian aid groups.

Even under Islamic law, this is murder, punishable by death. There's not a single country I am aware of in the world where this is legal. This was a crime. And everyone involved should be executed.

Those responsible for killing 7 UN officials? Yes, get rid of them - they broke international law and need to be eradicated. But that's it.

Well, and those who killed anyone else. UN officials aren't more people than anyone else.

Very nicely said. Don't know what this has to do with anything (since these people are nowhere near America or you, unless you're over there or something), but hey.

OK. So let's bomb them. They're not near America anyways, right?

What a stupid retort.

And the paradox of tolerance continues, folks. There's really no answer to this, is there? So what makes your opinion more valid than theirs? In the end, it still involves killing people that don't fly with your views, in the exact same vein as they are killing people that don't agree with theirs.

Yet, there's no paradox. The old cannard of "my rights extend to your nose" is almost as old as man itself. We can disagree, you can call me all the hateful names you want, and vice versa. But the instant you try to hurt me, I have a right to defend myself to the fullest extent, including killing you. And if I fail, society has a right on my behalf to draw and quarter you for your crimes.

Only stupid people mistake this. There's simply no way to be nice about this. If you think that killing a murderer to prevent a murder and murdering someone are the same thing...you're insanely stupid.

The old saying is "I may disagree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Not, I will defend to the death your right to hack your neighbor to bits with a hatchet because she insulted your religion.

Before you claim that you're saving lives, let's abstract what you're saying for a second. One party believes something, and if others don't follow it then they die. Our party believes that others should believe whatever they want (which is a belief in itself)... and if others don't follow it then they die. Exact same thing. No difference. Hence the paradox.

I am saving lives. You're just too fucking stupid to understand it. And if your life depended on arguing this, you'd be under a blade tomorrow. Say a quiet thank you to the God you don't believe in that people like me will fight to the death to protect morons like you from savages who will kill you for your empty headedness.

At 4/4/11 03:30 AM, The-universe wrote: I see you ignored...

I didn't ignore you. I told you that you were wrong.

Yes, you can duplicate it. How? Because you can search for people with the same condition who have refused treatment and are willing to go under the observations and testing in order to monitor the condition and examine the results. And yes most people can be in the position to refuse treatments for certain issues.

Except, that's not what peer review is, and you know it. I take your results, and I duplicate them. THAT is peer review.

What you are describing has already been done. Tens of thousands of people have looked into her story. They've checked into it, and it seems to check out. It could be possible that she is a freak case, but, if her case is genuine, it is proof that self healing is possible.

Despite all the dancing around the point, this is inarguable. I don't think you understand basic logic.

Secondly, if a woman is diagnosed with cancer, refuses treatment and then suddenly has no signs of cancer. How the hell is that a proven case for willing out cancer? It's as speculative as saying; The tests were botched, the patients names were mixed up or even better yet it was just another random medical false positive.

That's possible. It doesn't go into a lot of detail on what the test was. If it was a mammogram, then there is a relatively high chance it was a false positive. If it was a biopsy, the chances are extremely low. While I admit that neither of us have enough information in this case to judge whether this is legit...if this IS legit...you are wrong. There are no ifs ands or buts.

But you know what. Forget the peer review. I would love to see a medical explanation as to what bodily chemicals/reactions 'will-power' creates and has the ability to destroy this particular type of cancer cells. What part of the immune system is responsible and how does it work in this case?

I provided one of those above, and you ignored it, because it didn't fit your bias.

But on a basic level, the desire to survive, and the belief that one will survive directly affects how one takes care of themselves. If nothing else, the person with a positive attitude will do more to make sure they are in good health than a person with bad attitude. This isn't rocket science. The alcoholic who hates his life is usually in worse health than the guy who loves his life and wants to extend it.

To be fair, this can also be taken to an extreme. Someone who refuses good care because of an overly optimistic outlook can die just as easily as a depressed drunk. So there is a healthy level. But studies overall show that attitude helps.

From the google searches, there doesn't seem to be any actual medical explanation to it so how can you scrutinise the science when there's no science given? It's just as valid as the story about a friend of mine being asked by his parents to take a drug test (for cannabis) and the results showed he was pregnant. Then another test showed he wasn't! PURE MIRACLES!! Well actually it isn't, after some inquiry the nurse mixed up the samples with another patient and some poor pregnant woman had to be told she was a drug user and secretly a man.

But in that example, the other person was pregnant. So the test was correct. Papers being put in incorrect slots does happen. However, as someone who went through cancer with a variety of family members, doctors don't walk in, grab a random chart off the wall, and say "Hey, you have down syndrome". And, despite your humorous anecdote, no doctor ever told your male friend he was pregnant. I'm sorry, it doesn't pass the smell test.

It's a funny joke that's been around for over 40 years, but it's never happened.

Until there is some real evidence backing up this claim, I don't have to do shit because the burden of proof is still in your ball court.

Simply claiming "I'm right!" is fun and all. (Trust me, I've done it too...though I usually have reason to. Sometimes I just do it to spite fools.) But it is poor substitute for debate. When you make a challenge, and someone answers it, you ARE in the burden of proof at that point. "XYZ never happens. EVER!" So if someone provides an example of XYZ happening...unless you have something better...you're wrong. End of story. Debate and logic 101.

As stupid as it may seem to you, you DID in fact make the claim that this never happens. Well, in one case, it appears it did. I keep admitting, it may be a freak anomoly (stuff like this DOES happen, the body is weird), and giving you every out. But you double down. It ISN'T on anyone else to prove it's real at this point. It's up to you to prove it's false. But if at this point you can't convince me this was fake (and I'm beyond skeptical), you won't disprove anyone else.

At 4/3/11 08:08 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: BAD PEOPLE DO BAD THINGS! ACCEPT IT! For fuck's sake, people! This is no better than when Jack Thompson blamed V-TECH on Counter-Strike. You simply can not blame peaceful expression for violent acts that were committed by violent people. If I were to shoot someone, then blame it on a Spongebob episode after I'm caught, does that mean that Spongebob is to blame? Or does it mean that I am simply full of shit?

Jack Thompson was an idiot. There was no connection. Yet when someone kills someone else for insulting their religion, the religion is the connection. Refusing to acknowledge the obvious helps no one.

At 4/3/11 08:59 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: You're outside a cave with a trumpet. There's a bear inside the cave along with your buddy scientist who's looking at the bear. If you decide to blow your trumpet, most likely your buddy isn't going to survive when the bear wakes up as the bear's going to get angry. What do you do? You know every outcome of the situation. It's entirely in your control.

How is this equivalent? Unless we are saying that Muslims are imbecilic animalistic creatures, unable to reason, debate or think...and that we should equate them to monstrous bears...this analogy holds no water.

At 4/3/11 10:46 PM, Gario wrote: Wait, isn't that another form of oppression? No wonder the world often hates America...

By the way, calling for the oppression of those that don't believe in your belief (of tolerance) is technically just as destructive...

Screech noise! Nope, stop.

It's called rule of law. I don't expect everyone to agree with me on everything. But I expect that, if my neighbor and I disagree, that we will discuss it like adults, and that he won't go behead the neighbor's children in a fit of anger. And if he does, we will put a nice shiny bullet in his temple and kill him.

Anyone who is not tolerant of others' right to exist if a disagreement arises...should themselves not exist. If you are incapable of dealing with people who aren't you and not murdering them...we execute you and remove your worthless self from humanity. Or, at the very least, lock you away in a tiny cage forever.

That's not "intolerance". It's civilization.

At 4/3/11 05:06 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: Yes there is, it's just that it isn't as easy to critizise catholicism without someone you know getting upset, since you live in a mostly christian state, and a large part of the media does whatever it can to create resentment between muslims and the west (not just portraying muslims as bad to the western world, but also making a big show whenever some retard goes burning a quran, painting muhammed with a bomb in his head or whatever).

I'm sorry, this doesn't hold water. Piss Christ, anyone? The Virgin Mary covered in porno pics and smeared with elephant dung? People spit on Christians all the time. And, while they are hardly silent about it, no violence ever follows.

Crap moral equivalence.

IRA, Army of God, Lambs of Christ... There's plenty of christian terror groups. And islamic terror in the western world is pretty minor compared to separatist terrorism; in europe 2010, only a single act of terrorism where connected to islamism, while 237 where from separatists (and an additional bunch from left- or rightwing activists or single issue groups).

Sorry, but this is, quite frankly, bullshit. Last Ramadan alone, there were over a hundred instances of Islamic attacks against "heretics" in England. One month, in one country.

This link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ter rorist_incidents,_2010
lists 18 seperate attacks directly tied to major terrorist organizations in Europe.

You're full of it.

Well, he shouldn't do it because it's retarded. If he isn't knowledgable of the international situation in respect to muslims and terrorism, maybe he should read up a bit before doing anything that's seen as very insulting to these people. If he IS knowledgable of the situation, then it's just plain stupid to "protest islamic terrorism" in the probably least effective and most risky way possible.

Why? Do you think about how people will take your words before you call them something? Personally, I think he's doing the world a great service. Calling him a retard for refusing to bow to pressure is, to me, offensive.

Don't worry...I won't kill you or anything tho.

Could have something to do with lebanon not bombing the US on a regular basis and americans generally not living under extremely harsh circumstances.

That is retarded logic. Sorry, there's nothing intelligent to respond to there.

So, because extremism in certain segments of a society of 28 million people, we should burn the holy book of a billion people. Yeah, that's retarded. Bigtime retarded.

That extremism is widespread and fatal to hundreds of thousands a year. Protesting that is a wonderful thing.

Burning the quran doesn't say "certain segments of afghan society are problematic", it says "islam should be eradicated" to those seeing it.

That's the point though. If Muslims are taking to the street to murder and rape and kill when they are offended...Islam IS a problem to the world and SHOULD be eradicated. If it's followers cannot be expected to respond without massive violence to any perceived insult...they are a threat to the world in general.

What this guy is doing though, is kind of like seeing a burning building, and instead of trying to get people out he's pouring fuel on it screaming "IF WE JUST GET ENOUGH PETROL OVER HERE WE CAN SUFFOCATE IT!!!".

That's not what it is at all. And if that's how you see it, you aren't smart enough to go forward in this debate.

At 4/3/11 05:23 PM, MrPercie wrote: He doesnt NEED to burn a quran in his daily life. If someone said I had to freedom to burn a holy book which is very important to a religion, I still wouldnt because I dont want to be an asshole.

You don't need to call him an asshole. Should I protest you?

Yeah, you may BELIEVE what ever the fuck you want but that doesnt make it right to DO what ever the fuck you want. You can believe theres a correlation between islam and terroism but still, again, its not his place to be burning qurans in order fight terroism, Im sure americas goverment and military can deal with that with the amount of money and resources they get but i dont think some priest burning a book is gunna help shit.

Who cares if it helps? He has a right to burn it because he spent his money on a copy, and he wants to burn it. That he's making a valid statement at the same time makes it even more protect-worthy.

Racism is just used as people forget the words to describe a type of hatred people have towards a certain group. His beliefs are still anti-islam and with the amount of arabs being islamic you might aswell call it racism.

If you're stupid, you'll call it racism. Equating disliking an ideology with "race" is moronic.

Because the middle east is still in bad shape with all the terroists going on and I think were more focused on those things rather than making sure every muslim doesnt protest when someone burns a quran. When were trying to fight an enemy (taliban) which have the same beliefs as the innocent people in the same country, insulting and disrespecting that religion will only turn those guys towards terroism.

That's borderline illiterate. So, because we're at war...bye bye freedom of speech? What nonsense!

Well they dont know that by protesting people are going to burn more qurans. i couldnt give a shit if some kid at my school bruned a quran in order to be "cool" or something but if the little shit thought it would be a good idea to record it then show it to every fucking muslim in the world aint gunna help. And besides, we can stop muslims being violent by simpler/mature methods rather than burning books till they rage out.

I'm sorry, what? No, that's not how life works. If someone learns that responding violently to something they don't like will get that something to go away...they will instinctively respond more violently in the future. The best way to deal with people who riot over this is to shoot them in the head and kill them. Teaches other people that wanton murder, rape, and pillage are not acceptable forms of "counter debate".

which he does, but organising it so that the meida hears about it which leads to many muslims getting angry and posssibly protesting/fighting is not what i think he should be doing.

Tough. You're a kid who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

At 4/2/11 09:48 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I think it's disingenuously apologetic to say religion isn't a cause for war, it absolutely can be. Just like any other ideas or beliefs can be.

Is it disingenuous to say that the cause for war is not rationally related to the religion? After all, Christians have been demanding that the Westborough Baptist Church show their work in declaring that God is killing our soldiers cause "we don't kill fags". To this date, they have yet to TRY making a religious case for their actions.

If 3000 people hear a speaker, and 2999 come away thinking they need to love their fellow man, and 1 comes away murdering his wife and child...which is more likely the message? The 2999 or the 1?

As such, simply saying that some religious person somewhere did something bad has NO reflection on the religion.

Far as Hitler...we know his mental state was crumbling as time went on. So while I could believe Hitler may have started out with some idea of Christianity, by the end I highly doubt he believed in much of anything other then himself (especially in that bunker, if you recall his last order was for his armies to just start dismantling Germany because the Germans had failed to achieve his goals). Also I've always wondered how exactly someone could be an atheist if they're trying to create their own religion.

Even in his early speeches and writings, he clearly articulated things that were at odds with the Bible. As his private writings came out, it was rather clear that he was hardly a religious person.

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."

Yet, there is NOTHING in the Bible to pretend that Christ fought against the "evil of the Jews". Nor do any of the sects of Christianity, Judaism or Islam claim anything remotely similar. Christ was a man who recognized that he was going to die and gave himself up to it. Far from fighting those who disagreed with him, he forbade his followers from protecting him...even though they were willing to kill the Roman guards who took him. Hitler simply used the Christian backdrop as a pretense to take power. Hardly a new idea.

At 4/1/11 02:47 PM, The-universe wrote:

At 4/1/11 06:34 AM, WolvenBear wrote: Personally, even as a Christian, I'd be outraged if someone tried to peer-review this test. "You six have just been shot, we'll treat you...you six, go die in a corner." Of course, any three million people can review her case, but peer review tries to duplicate it.

You can duplicate the tests to see how a gunshot wound affects the body via physiological and anatomical research.

That's not peer review. Peer review is the deliberate attempt to recreate the results of the test. So unless people sign up to refuse treatment (which in and of itself is unlikely), to peer review a test, you have to deny critical people treatment.

This is an inescapable point. There is no way to ethically or morally peer review this. This woman could be a freak of nature, she could be blessed by God, she could have an extra organ we don't. Complaining that it is not "peer reviewed" is like demanding we test stories of people surviving Nazi gas chambers to see if they're true.

It's unethical, it's illegal, and it's evil.

At 4/3/11 02:00 PM, JoS wrote: It is a fallacy that registered guns are never used in crimes. Many cases they actually are. Not all homicides are gang bangers, many are fits of passion with registered guns. Not just career criminals commit domestic assaults, not just career criminals snap.

Yea, but in cases of passion, registered guns never help. If a dude murders his wife and the police find him covered in her blood, that's what matters...not the registry. Most people who snap don't have the foresight to cover their tracks. These steps do little...if anything to prevent crimes of passion.

In Canada those who owned certain weapons that are now prohibited before the law changed are grandfathered in, meaning they are still legally allowed to own them. So your reference to the old lady with an SKS rifle does not apply to Canadian law.

Which, in and of itself, means the law is foolish. If these weapons are a danger, they need to be removed. If there is a grandfather clause...the law sucks.

Even if we ignore his persecution of Christians...

He publically and privately professed that Christianity was a slave religion. He said that it impeded his goals. And his said that many of Jesus's teachings were incorrect because they countered his own.

He couldn't even claim to be a Christian in name only.

At 3/30/11 10:34 AM, Ravariel wrote: Do you understand why peer-review is important? Because it seems to me you don't. It's not just some other published fella looking at a paper and saying "that makes sense!" It's a slew of people mulling over methods, results, and questioning where observations might be attributed to causes not listed or tested for.

How do you peer review a single test?

Personally, even as a Christian, I'd be outraged if someone tried to peer-review this test. "You six have just been shot, we'll treat you...you six, go die in a corner." Of course, any three million people can review her case, but peer review tries to duplicate it.

Anyone who tried would immediately be barred from practicing law and go to jail.

To wit: correlation does not equal causation, and in none of those stories is any possible explanation for the remission even seriously considered. Without a peer-reviewed study, there is no way to possibly determine that it was "positive thinking" that beat the cancer, any more than it was due to her watching a rerun of the 2nd season of Friends.

So how do we peer review this? You 6 people who want to live...f...you? You 6 get treatment?

Realistically, one case is a point. If the current claim is: "No one can survive a gunshot wound to the head"...the first person who does proves it wrong. You don't retest that by shooting others in the head.

At 3/26/11 05:21 AM, The-universe wrote: I'm asking for red apples, you're giving me oranges. Let me elaborate.

No, I get you. You're just trying to pretend your point was beyond me. I understand.

Jordan: 'A woman cured cancer by willing it out of the body'
Me: 'Show a peer reviewed article'

But that's irrelevant. If a woman refused treatment, and got better, for lack of a better term, she DID will the cancer out of her body. A quick google/yaoo search brings up hundreds of articles on this woman, and none of them call her a liar. Other than smarmily saying "it's not peer reviewed"...what do you have? This happened, no one is contradicting it. Therefore, this case is proof you are wrong. Until someone has a better explaination, this is solid.

You: 'Faith helps' (insert claim about 'every' study saying so)
Me: 'But I want a peer reviewed article which says cancer can be cured by willing it out of the body'
You: 'Faith helps'

That was certainly never my argument. But hey. Reducto ad absurdum is just as good as real debate.

You're definitely are in a poor position here.

At 3/24/11 11:18 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I'm saying I don't really see it. Even when it happened here it came complete with a defense of how you didn't actually make an error.

Gotcha. So if the time that I make a minor error with you that I defend the underlying point, I have never admitted error?

Even ignoring the conceit implied in that, that your ONE experience is all that matters, this is a logical fallacy. Something along the lines of "since I have never seen it, it has never happened."

So wait. After calling me a liar, you are now lying.

I'm pointing to the fact that we aren't wanted now, and that I may have been mistaken when I asserted we weren't wanted originally. I also said that when these invasions which led to war were pitched to us they didn't include "we were asked to step in" anywhere in the sales pitch. So to my understanding, it looks like we decided to go to war because we felt the need and justification. Then when the operation was over and the government toppled, the Iraqi's asked us to leave and we're still there. This says to me that we weren't honestly there to simply help them to begin with. That's my point.

Except that we were going in to help the Iraqis WAS a selling point of the original plan. Same with Afghanistan. We have a different administration, and it's been a decade. Trying to claim that our actions today somehow make us comic book villians for going in in the first place is...bizarre. Even if we grant the today part of your argument, the yesterday part does not follow.

I get the same feeling from you right about now. As I thought I was making my points clear (though I see some typos and mis-usages now that make me face palm since it changes what I actually meant).

I don't really care about typos. If you type teh instead of the, I'm not going to call you on it. It's not that you haven't made your point, or that typos and grammar errors have made me misunderstand.

It's simply that you're wrong. And that when someone points out the massive, glaring errors in your argument, you simply shift the goals. "We WERE wanted in the beginning." But we aren't wanted now! "But that doesn't affect my statement." Sure it does. They want us to leave and we won't, so we were evil when we went in! "Um, wait...what?"

At 3/23/11 02:53 PM, The-universe wrote: But nonetheless, all I want is one peer reviewed article which proves this statement correct "Uhh.. This person cured cancer by willing it out of her body."

The belief that you ill get better makes a difference.

No study has contradicted this.

Spin it how you like, but faith helps. There's simply no getting around this.

At 3/23/11 11:11 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: I must have missed those between all the times you were insulting people.

You're now being dishonest. I have repeatedly said i got things wrong in the past. Trying to conflate that with me calling people liars or stupid is trying to AGAIN shift the goalposts.

It seems the current stand is that if I ever insulted anyone, I am not sincere when I admit error? This is a standard you yourself would not meet.

How is that a different point? Your point is they asked us to come in and seemed to be acting like we're just doing what the people want. I'm pointing out that even if that were true at the beginning of both wars, it has changed from being that as time went on. I also fail to see how our continued occupation can't be related back to the occupation that Israel is doing in Gaza, even though our occupation is less restrictive and less about having direct and active control of the nation.

So wait. After calling me a liar, you are now lying. Your original claim was that we weren't wanted originally. To prove that, you point to the fact that we have been asked to leave.

There's no way to rationally debate you, as you will lie and twist and spin and distort to whatever end it is you want to argue.

At 3/22/11 04:29 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Ummm... Yes they did. The entire market of S&Ls disappeared. Major Texas law firms were toppled. The damage from the S&L crisis was so broad that an entirely new form of business structure was created (after only two forms had existed from the beginning of the concept of entity organization).

Well, that's a neat line, but it belies reality:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and _Loan_Crisis#Causes

The damage to S&L operations led Congress to act, passing the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA) in August 1981 and initiating the regulatory changes by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board allowing S&Ls to sell their mortgage loans and use the cash generated to seek better returns soon after enactment;[7] the losses created by the sales were to be amortized over the life of the loan, and any losses could also be offset against taxes paid over the preceding 10 years.[8] This all made S&Ls eager to sell their loans. The buyers-major Wall Street firms-were quick to take advantage of the S&Ls' lack of expertise, buying at 60%-90% of value and then transforming the loans by bundling them as, effectively, government-backed bonds (by virtue of Ginnie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Fannie Mae guarantees). S&Ls were one group buying these bonds, holding $150 billion by 1986, and being charged substantial fees for the transactions.

Selling bad equity for nearly full value isn't "suffering". But nice try.

The biggest accounting firm collapsed after the dotcom bust. Major firms like Worldcom and Enron disappeared and their jobs went with them.

Two firms? Holy crap!

Did either of them have anything to do with the bust? Well, no. But it sounds good on paper!

Currently, while many firms have been bailed out, a ton of businesses have collapsed.

In all of these crisises major players in the respective messes were jailed.

Hard to say that there were no consequences.

Jail isn't punishment? Wait, I'm confused! No consequences...except life in jail.

Well that's better than a fine!

I assume you mean irrefutable, but either way you're wrong. Firms lost upwards of 8 figures of dollars because of the fallout from all three recessions. Even firms that were hands off in these recessions were hit dramatically because of the collapse created by bad actors. Not a single firm, save those who luckily bet against the economy, would say they are better off now than before.

The collapses are bad for those at the top. The promise of wealth without consequences in not why people do these bad and risky acts. Greed, an undending part of human nature, is the common bond here.

Yet, for many of these firms, they not only saw billions in government rescue, but they were guaranteed FULL financial backing. That hurts your REALLY cherry picked theory.

At 3/22/11 05:50 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: When you misapply what my argument is about, yeah, there is. But I know, you obviously have an ego to protect

Is that what it is? Man, I wish I knew I had an ego to protect the HUNDREDS of times I have apologized in the past on this board alone. It COULDN'T possibly be that your argument was little different than I understood with only the country being wrong. It COULDN'T be.

Cause your argument couldn't have any flaws period. Guffaw!

Did they ask us to occupy their country? Did they ask us to tell them how to govern themselves? Did they ask us to prop up candidates and suggest as strongly as we could to elect them? The Iraqi's have actually several times asked us to leave since Saddam was toppled. Yet there we remain.

That's a different point altogether and you know it.

First your claim was that we were unwanted invaders. Now that you have a substantial claim to the contrary, you try to say that we refuse to leave when asked. Even if the latter point is valid, it doesn't validate the former. And I think you know that. Shifting the goalposts and all.

Not really because the commentary ignores (at the least) the part where the Iraqi's asked America to leave their country. It also makes assumptions that the kind of help the Afghans and Iraqis asked for is the help they got, and that they're totally happy with the way things have gone for them since the US intervened.

My commentary doesn't even touch on that. And neither did your commentary. As such, you're being dishonest.

Even if they're the same sorts of mistakes? Even if they violate the same sorts of laws?

But they don't. As I prove below.

Yet there are reports, and these are reports the aforementioned satanbrain even linked where UN investigation is saying there is NO evidence some of the schools fired upon by Israel were used in rocket or missile attacks.

So what? Who really cares?

The Palestinians have a HABIT of firing from schools and hospitals. If Israel hits the wrong school, or gets one wrong completely...that doesn't change the fact that they wouldn't be bombing schools to begin with if it wasn't Palestinian policy to fire from them. It's damn near a case of Pavlov's dog.

Even if this "return fire" is not limited to hostile targets or installations of Side A?

Yes. If Side A has a history of doing what side B expects...then Side A is still at fault.

Again, even if the Arab children Side B is shooting present no threat or evidence of being bombers?

YES. Dude, you base your worldview on past behavior. The FIRST time a little kid blows up in a plaza, you start looking for that. After the hundreth time in a year, you expect it as a matter of rote.

Of course side A is to blame.

That's the problem with these narratives to me...it suggests that we can condemn Side A, but if Side B does THE SAME THING, somehow it's ok because Side A started it...it's ridiculous to condemn only one if the other engages in the same actions. Especially when it's clear we're not always talking about clear and definable acts of self defense.

But do we not put response into context with action. We do in the legal system. You can't punch me in the face, then I shoot you to death and be able to say "pure self defense, his fault".

In certain circumstances, you actually can. If I am registered as a lethal weapon (boxer, military, martial arts, etc), a gun is absolutely a valid counter to fists. Yet, how is this equivalent? It pretends that one side is just causing minor harm, and that the other side is retaliating in nuclear weapons. Bombs to bombs is equivalent.

How? The Articles of Confederation and the government it spawned were a massive failure for the 6 or 7 years they applied. Then we went back to the drawing board and drafted The Constitution. That's my point, even the most successful systems don't develop overnight.

The Articles of Confederation aren't equivalent. The only real issue the founders changed was interstate commerce. Comparing a serious change in a working system to a full force failure is silly.

You still spoke far too soon on the matter, which is what I was getting at.

I based my statement on what the President could legally do. He broke the law.

I could go into more detail about how I am still right, since we are still not "in there", and the President says we never will be, but what's the point?

I really should have known that's what you were going to do with that statement.

Damn logic! Causing me to speak truth!

At 3/22/11 09:45 AM, Korriken wrote: the article.

I know Obama can't go declaring war without congressional consent, but we never declared war on Libya. we just launched some missiles at it. I do remember Clinton firing missiles on Iraq, but I can't find any news articles on whether congress approved it or not.

Clinton, however, didn't need approval because Iraq was in violation of a treaty we had signed with them. He already had authorization.

No such treaty exists with Libya.

At 3/19/11 12:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Hmm, in that case the S&L crisis should have never happened, because of the Great Depression. And the Dot Com Crisis should have never happened. The current recession should have never happened.

But did those people actually suffer? No? The government bailed them out?

Well, then you don't really have a point huh?

Proof that the "people will fix the market" philosophy is complete and utter bullshit.

No, it's unrefutable truth.