Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The main reason Germany wasn't able to get a nuke in time was because their top nuclear physicst over estimated the critical mass. Hitler then cut funding for the program as he thought one couldn't separate that much Uranium. Funny how a small science error could eventually lead to Europe's liberty.

The UN has a major problem which prevents it from enforcing its treaties: vetos. The majority of the members in the UN favors war in Iraq, but a resolution authorizing it would fail due to France and, possibly, China's veto (despite what some of you have said, Germany doesn't have veto power). In the past, the USSR abused the hell out of the veto, then Russia abused the veto by refusing to do anything regarding teh Serbian genocide. Now, France said that it would never approve a UN resolution authorizing war with Iraq under any condition . This is not a reasonable position and is based on a larger power struggle between France and the US. Also, China has reportidly implied that if the US allows China to invade Taiwan, then China won't veto. This dirty politicing is disgusting, and the majority is drowned out by angry vetoing countries.

Saddam's regime is in danger. He knows that by showing even one ounce of weakness, the people will rise up. So he is trying to stay in power by making perporterous claims that America is losing badly and that America is nowhere near Bagdad, when in reality, we are only 10 miles from it. The deception can only last so long; when the US troops are at Bagdad, Iraqis will know that their government is weak and will rise up. Saddam's days are limited, assuming he is even alive.

At 4/1/03 05:22 PM, dlsc187 wrote: i think bush has been a great president. The things bush has had go through in his term is unbelieveable.
1.9/11
2.due to 9/11 our economy falls
3.tax cuts.
4.wage war on terroism
5.after afghanistan bush basically informs the u.n.
to do there job.
6.Bush sees nothing is gonna come out the u.n.{pussies}so he takes care of weapon inspections himself with force.
7.bush is now gonna liberate iraq and establish a democracy for the iraqis and rid of any threats coming from there again

1. Both Democrats and Republicians wanted revenge. It's not like Bush alone responded to 9-11. Also his curtailing of civil liberties went to far after 9-11 as when he declared the Freedom of Information Act null, he started to abuse his new authority. He has denied several requests for government documents concerning contact before watering down environmental policy.

2&3 Bush is trying to help the economy by cutting taxes. This is excedingly unwise. First, the resession was caused by very low consumer confidence due to 9-11, but mostly corporate scandels. Having a $300 tax rebate for the middle and lower class won't fix the critical consumer confidence problem.

4. Yes he did wage the war on terrorism. He did not do so well, as Bin Laden escaped. The pakistani government has been more evective in catchign Bin Laden's key luitenients (pardon my spelling).

5&6. Actually, Bush origionally wanted unilateral action against Iraq because of possible connections to terror. Only after badgering by Tony Blair did Bush go to the UN, and only then did he switch his stated goal to disarming. The UN was ineffective, I'll give you that, mainly because of the ****ing veto system and France being assholes. Now it seems the stated goal has changed again to liberating the people.

7. Liberating Iraq is a good place. However, Bush's means are pretty bad. He authorized the use of cluster bombs, which are extremly unreliable and do not explode immediatly. Cluster bombs lead to many civilian casualties, which doesn't really win over Iraqis now does it?

At 4/2/03 09:29 AM, fourdaddy wrote:

i personally think the theologicical aspect of these discussions (arguments?) should be dropped.

My main issue with Bush and God, is not that he believes in God, everyone has a right to their own beliefs, but that he is picking away at the wall of separation between church and state. He put as an Attorney General someone who in his earlier years made it his quest to remove evolution from public schools because it was "anti-Christian". Also, Bush has made several policy decisions based solely upon furthering Christianity, which clearly violates the ideals set forth in the Lemon Test. The AIDS conference example (which I read about in Newsweek, a less partisan source) and his support of federal voucher programs that would largly fund religius schools show how Bush is imposing Christianity from above. Being a Christian is okay, imposing relgion on others is not.

The First Amendment is not universal and doesn't protect all speech. One cannot, for example, yell "Fire" in a crowded theater. The Supreme court has ruled on many cases concerning theexent of the First Amendment and have created several tests to determine whether speech is free or not. The two test I feel are important here are the "clear and present danger" test, and the "proper time, place, and manner" test. Blocking major roads is dangerous, both to civilian drivers and to people needing ambulances which would be blocked by protesters. Also, blocking traffic is not a proper place and manner to protest. Hence the protestors actions are not protected by the First Amendment. Moster trucks are a little excessive though...

At 3/29/03 04:20 PM, jimsween wrote: We didnt give them chemical weapons, I dont thenk we even have chemical weapons. Get your facts strait.

Oh we did, and I think we still do. To revise my initial statement, we gaver Iraq chemical weapons to combat commies AND Iran. I forgot to mention Iran in my initial statement.

At 3/29/03 03:37 PM, alejandro1 wrote: Ok, who's responsible for the US going to war, Bush or Clinton.

Bush caused the US to go to war. Whether this is a good thing is debatable

Well, who's the one who didn't enforce the post-gulf war agreements to stop making weapons of mass destruction.

Bush Sr.. Clinton, and Bush Jr. all have this on their hands. Bush Senior left Saddam in power after the first Gulf War, I major blunder. Clinton did take action on Iraq, cruise missles, but I feel the cruise missles couldn't do everything. George W. left Iraq pretty much alone until after the Afghanistan fighting was over. His ititial reason to attack was unfounded claims that Saddam was giving WMD to terrorists, then when that wasn't popular, he switched the reason to ridding Saddam of weapons, then switched the main reason to fighting for human rights.

As for Reno and Albright, how do you think they would act in this situation? God, I'm glad we have Powell and Ashcroft.

You think just because one is liberal that they would oppose war and fighting back against terrorists? You are mistaken. 5 years ago, democrats were considered the "warmongers" by the Republicians for attacking Iraq with cruise missles. Reno and Albright would take similar counter terror measures and counter Iraq measures, if nessesary. The one big difference would be that they would take as many civil liberties to do it, which is a good thing.

Janet Reno.... ewwww.

Yes, Janet Reno is ugly. Point?

Thank you for providing actual arguements this time around.

No country was supposed to, but a lot of ilegal weapons sales did occur. And by the way, the $250 million wortyh of military equipment we gave to Iraq was mostly chemical weapons to use aginst the commies in the area.

One thing: America can't take the whole world on. The American economy is highly globalized and feeds on its multitude of trading agreements. If sactions were placed on America, theworld wouold hurt, but we would hurt more. Furthermore, the American military is not all powerful. China alone has the largest army of the world. The American Navy and Air Force do not outnumber the globe's combined power. Plus, if American uses nukes on others, what makes you think other nations won't, in turn nuke us? We are not all powerful. No nation is, or ever will be.

Regardless of the fact that it is, um, you know, IMMORAL to massacure the Iraqi civilians. You need to realize that Iraqis don't have the ability to protesttheir government without being shot at. Even as we pass through, we still leave Saddam's thugs in power. Who knows what the Iraqis really think?

At 3/29/03 12:21 AM, alejandro1 wrote: Hey all you liberals out there, shut the hell up and stop harrassing Bush. He's doin a damn good job and has a damn good cabinet behind him. Clinton did a shitty job and half his cabinet consisted of whores. George W, we applaud you.

Ah, the bane of all politics forums, trolls. Don't tell others to shut up simply because they disagree with you. Furthermore, you can't just make broad statements like that. You need to back them up. As for the whore comment, I really can't see Janet Reno and Madiline Albright shake their booty at passing strangers. Ick.

Sorry for the double post. Anyways, I remember the 6 month statistic comes from a Newsweek article a while back.

Here is my two cents on the issue. In every conflict like this, we must balance environmental concerns with economic concerns. We can't always put the environment in front of the economy; similarly, we can't always put the economy in front of the environment. Hense it must be looked at by a case by case basis, looking at both the environment and economic potential.

ENVIRONMENT:
The drilling was set in a wildlife perserve.
An oilwell severly damages soil fertility of the surrounding soil, and hence the perserve would be runined.

ECONOMIC POTENTIAL
I was going to cite the fact fact that it would take ten years to get oil and it would only last 6 months, but somebody already stole my fire.
The quality of the Alaskan soil makes drilling difficult and expensive
Transporting the oil to the main land would also be costly as not oil pipelines are close to the area

In this case, I feel the harm done to the environment outwieghs the potential economic gain.

At 3/27/03 05:25 PM, swayside wrote: well, the both of you are wrong. do you think only christians believe creationism? do you think all creationists are christian? if you do, then you lack the basic knowledge to post here.

Hey, check up on your facts before you flame me. Genesis is believed by Jews, Christians, AND Muslims. Furthermore the institutes of "creation science" found in the US argue on behalf of Noah, Adam and Eve, etc, not pagan gods. So don't start getting into a "you're too stupid to post here" rant. I want debate, not name calling.

Swayside's arguement about evolution causing a lack of morals, etc. is faulty. Science is completely separate from morals. There is no "ethical code" involved with believing science. There are moral and immoral people that believe evolution, just as there is moral and immoral people who believe in creationism. As for your complaint about evolution teaching our childen that science says they come from monkey, is that a bad thing? Knowlege should not be excluded simply because it considers man to be an animal.

At 3/27/03 12:26 PM, TheEvilOne wrote: Is education the responsibility of the federal government? I don't really see how you can blame education problems on the federal government, especially when you only cite the national testing program. Here in Oklahoma, the education system is practically broke. But I can't say I hold Bush or anyone in the federal government responsible. I pin the blame on our state government (Frank Keating has to be the worst governor in history). And right now, it is the state government that is taking the initiative to fix our education system (and we'll get a lottery, to boot!). I believe education is the responsibility of the individual states.

You are correct in saying education is primarily in the hands of the states. But Bush campaigned with his "No Child left behind program" which involves federal oversight of the States' educational work. States still need federal grants, grants which Bush has been slow do give.

SUVs are one issue I disagree with the administration on. But I don't exactly like the Kyoto treaty. Businesses need to show responsibility regarding the environment, but don't impose too many environmental restrictions that could adversely affect businesses. It's just a matter of priorities. People disagree on what should be a priority between the economy and the environment. And with the economy in the shape it's in right now...

The Kyoto treaty basicly puts a cap on CO2 emissions. The United States generates 25% of the world's CO2 emissions. Since Co2 leads to globl warming which contributes to environmential disaters, which destroy life and economies, Bush should have opted for the long term benefits the Kyoto treaty provided. Furthermore, less regulated emissions causes grave air quality issues in the NOrtheast, where much of the pollution is blown, which brings down property values. The minor additional cost businesses would have had to pay would have been balanced by the short term and ling term benefits.

I haven't heard much about accounting scandals lately. Granted, the war has dominated the news, but someone would probably find some room to report on it, right? Look at it this way: in the cases of Enron, Worldcom, etc., for their stock prices to be that overinflated, they would have to have been overstating their profits for quite a while. That means under Clinton's watch, boys and girls! I think it's funny that these companies had been doing this while Clinton was president, and then when Bush comes into office, they finally get caught. Of course, Bush gets the blame.

As an extemper, I have to read to news a lot. Scandels are still being reported, but they are, as you said, being drowned out by war talk. My statement that the rate of scandels before the COrporate Accountibility Act is the same as afterwards comes from an Economist article I read somewhere. Yes, I agree that theses companies were being dirty throughout Clinton's administration. They have been dirty from Reagen all the way to George W., when tghey were nly caught because they went bankrupt. The reason Bush in under fire for those incidents was because of his unwise policy decisions to repeal several acts governing corporate responsibility.
oss of the surplus preceeded that tradegy.

There was no talk of increasing spending before 9/11. The tax cuts were giving the surplus back to the people. But let's see... 9/11 and the subsequent war in Afghanistan, the troubled economy, the fact that the Democrats controlled the Senate for a year... is this entirely Bush's fault? When the economy turns around, with more companies generating more revenue, more tax dollars will come in. Maybe that will cut the deficit a little bit. And come on, be honest... can you say that you DON'T like the fact that you aren't paying as much in taxes every year?

There was talk of increasing spending before 9-11, actually. Bush increased spending on a missle defense program that didn't accomplish much and on agrigultual grants. Moreover, his tax cuts spent well more than the surplus. He overshot a balanced budjet by a lot, even before 9-11 and the War in Afghanistan. For your last comment, to be honest, I'm only 18, and taxes havn't really come a factor for me. Regardless of how happy tax cuts make people, they should be done in a fisclly resonsible way.

At 3/27/03 07:20 AM, swayside wrote:

At 3/26/03 08:31 PM, zMDude wrote: Religion should be kept out of public schools.

CREATIONISM IS NOT RELIGION. do you want to ban turns of speech that originated from the bible in public schools? do you think a moral corralation is the same as being a member of islam? of course you don't. creationism, in itself, is just as much religion as evolutionism. creationism spawns theism, evolutionism spawns athiesm. don't you think that balances out?

Sorry, but I must disagree with you swayside. Not teaching creationism in public schools is not banning free speech, because teachers are free to talk about it in private, but not in the classroom. Creationism isn't just "from the bible", it is the bible, as it assumes the stories found in Genesis. Teaching religion as science in public schools clearly violates the Lemon Test (THe Supreme Court test for the establishment clause: that a law to be constitiutional it must (1) have a secular purpose (2) Neigther advance nor inhibit religion (3) aviods excessive government entanglement with religion). Your claim that evolution spawns atheism is simply untrue. The pope himself believes in evolution and sys that science and religion should not interfere with each other.

I'm not going to get into the war in Iraq, because quite frankly, I don't feel like it. However, I do have some things to say concerning Bush's domestic policy...

Education
His idea for national testing is decent, but he doesn't give the states the money to enforce the provisions of his program. Result? Education still being poor and state governments being pissed at Bush on this issue

Environment
When Bush went into office, he undid a shitload of envirnmental acts. Moreover, he continues to allow SUV's to have crap fuel efficency under a loophole. Add to the fact that he pulled out of the Kyoto treaty, and we've found that Bush is a envirnmentally unfriendly President. Even his supporters admit that they are putting business interests above the environment.

Corporate Accountibility
Before Enron, Bush took the opinion of "trust Big Business. They regulate themselves" With this in mind, Bush, in the name of removing economic barriers, reduced several regulations on businesses in regard to accounting. Bush changed his public statements after Enron and Worldcom, when he realized that, shit, one can't always trust big business. His Corporate Accountibility act, fell well short of its intended goal, as the loopholes that plagues it have left the rate of scandels before the acts equal the rate after its passage.

Fiscal Responsibility
Bush, in a nutshell, wants/ed to cut taxes and increase spending. Um, anyone see a problem here? Two minus's do not make a plus. With the Clinton era budjet plans, the US managed to get a surplus, a surplus squandered by the Bush administration. The tax cuts did not "pay for themselves" even before 9-11, and the loss of the surplus preceeded that tradegy.

In conclusion, it is inaccurate to say "Bush Rox" because his domestic policy is not that good. It's 2:42 AM here, so I'm going to bed now. I hope stopping this debate from becomeing a flame war.

At 3/27/03 01:35 AM, Whykickamoocow wrote: $20 syas it goes for more then 2 years.

Hell, I'd take you up on that bet! I'd say about 30 more days of fighting, 8 months of peacekeeping and nation building

At 3/26/03 02:14 AM, MuscleHed wrote: So you don’t think the Big Bang is garbage? Check out William Lane Craig's book “Reasonable Faith” His theory is this, without exception, whatever begins to exist has a cause, and the universe began to exist, so the universe has a cause! Dust just happened so explode to make a universe?

Ah, the first cause arguement. How...unorigional. I've heard this arguement WAY too many times. If you want to make the assertion that everything has a cause, then guess what? God must follow that rule to, and we must ask ourselves, what caused God? Also, quantum physists are actually starting to figure out what caused the Big Bang. In modern quantum theroy, there is no such thing as a pure vacuum. In every space there are "messenger particles" which phase in and out of existance. These particles go random directions. However, there is always a very slim chance that all the particles will move to one point, a "fluxuation" to use common terms. This is what many scientist feel casused the origional lump of matter which exploded under its own weight. (Yes, I am a mega nerd for knowing this.) Furthermore, trying to prove God is not only scientifically flawed, but religiously flawed. Religion is based on faith, meaning believing in what you don't know for sure.

Don’t get started on Stephen Hawkins, buddy, there are maybe 5 people in the word who can understand his theories, and I doubt we are in that number. He believes there is a timeless space, a four-dimensional hypersphere, near the beginning of the universe. Now, this is all Greek to me, and I’m guess unless you received a doctorate at the age of nine, it is Greek to you as well.

Actually many of Steven's works aren't a hard read. I've read some of them myself, and I know I'm not "one in five". His theories go from rather simple to very complex. Furthermore, he is still a very promenent scientist who is finding more and more evidence of the Big Bang. Whether he goes into more advanced theroy is irrrevelent.

The main problem with the big bang isn’t the mass of Scientific evidence against it, but the small amount supporting it. For that reason, I feel it will forever stay a theory.

This is a misunderstanding of the word theory in regards to science. Since the Big Bang obviously can't be recreated in a science lab, it will automaticly stay a theory. However, when I say theory, I'm talking about theory of gravity theory, not "I have a theory that Mr. Plum killed someone in the kitchen with a lead pipe" type theory.

religion and science are not to be mixed? How can one truly exist without the other? Let us assume for a second God is real, then did he not create all the things Scientist study? Assuming he truly exists, and that he created the Universe, should he not be a part of it all?

Then question here is that of methods. Religion is taking a few precepts and holding them, well, religiously. Science is contastly testing itself, expanding, and using the age old scientific method. The two methods of obtaining infromation are mutually exclusive.

When over 90% of Adults believe there is a God, why should the minority be treated with favor? I know we try to grant equality here, but the Needs, wants, and desires of the Many greatly outweigh those of the few.

Many of our founders where careful to limit what they deemed the "tyranny of the majority". The majority does NOT have a right to shove its relgious beliefs down the minorities' throut. As Thomas Jefferson once said, "Democracy without guaranteed rights is like two wolfs and a chicken deciding what's for dinner"

This is problem be my last post in here, seeing as I feel it is a waste of time to argue with someone when neither side it ready or willing to give up their beliefs. I’d stay and listen, if I hadn’t heard all of this before!

As someone who is rather independent, I flow with the facts. AS I've grown up, I've chaged my opinion on many issues. I do get your point on how many people do need to be less stubborn. *cough* And well, about your last statement, I doubt you've heard about the messenger particle fluxuations before.

Now that I've done my refutation post, I would just like to say that it seems that there always seems to be two differnt arguements going on at the same time in this room.

At 3/25/03 10:50 PM, jimsween wrote: Do you have any idea how the U.S. government works, we have elections for senate every year and president every 4 years. At the end of this year we vote for president and senate. The president needs permission from the senate to declare war and if he went on a rampage it would be doubtfull anybody would vote for him, much less the senators that gave him permission. That is what is stopping him.

Actually you have elections for senators for every SIX years. Furthmore the President can use troops w/o Congressional approval for 60 days as per the War Powers Act (which I find wrong).

But, nevertheless, Bush will not go on a rampage. Especially with 2004 elections looming.

CNN is NOT a republician propaganda machine. I can say this as a liberal too. CNN tries its hardest to stay middle of the pack, which it has done well. The reason they don't show the casualties is because, well, the viewing public doesn't want to see gore. THe casualties are still reported by CNN, but by words, not grusome pictures.

Bush should still apolegize for the missle landing in the residential area though...

At 3/25/03 04:25 PM, MuscleHed wrote: The problem with Evolution is that is have to many holes in it.

Holes? It has been genrally accepted for a while now, and scientists are getting mroe insight as to the rate of evolution. Evolution happens everywhere: how else do antibiotic germs develop?

Creationism is just another treat. In fact, most and more scientist are following a system called “Intelligent Design” which is more an Agonistic version of Creationism. It is not “bullshit” as someone called it. Look it up, there are more factor pointing toward this.

More and more scientists? Actually more and more scientists are being repulsed at "Intellegent Design Theory", as it bears only the face of real science. This only real arguement they make is "OOOooo! Wow! Life is so complex! It must be GOD" This is not science, just speculation. Moreover, order happens all the time naturally because of the unquire shape of molecules.

Evolution is a factor in us today, in the development of the different animal species but it doesn’t explain the creation of all of this.

You're right. It only explains from the first life form. That first lifeform has been explained by two plausible scientific theories: one with evidence the first self reproducing chemical arose from the energy of sea vents, and another which states a "soup" of various compounds were united by means of lighting. In case you are wondering, scientists have been have to reproduce organic chemicals from scratch using models of these natural methods.

The big band? Please! What a crock!? How far up your ass does your head have to be to buy into that!

Yes! That theory about the Backsrteet Boys creating the universe is CRAP! Okay, more seriously, about the big bang theory, you don't offer any counter evidence other then "omg it is so dumb". I however listen to such scientists as Steven Hawkings who strongly believes in the Big Bang Theory.

In conclusion, I don't wish to try to "convert" anybody to atheism. I just wish to show that religion and science are not to be mixed.

At 3/23/03 11:53 PM, MuscleHed wrote: Say what? What? The Bones? What? Are you joking? Medical Text books document the importance of eating animal meat! I have never read anything ever saying Protein is stored in the bones!

Listen to what I am saying! I am not saying protein is stored on the bones. I am saying the amino acids from meat causes the bone to break down to provide enough alkaline meterials to nutralize the acids. Your medical textbook should have plenty of info concorning acid nutralization to prove my point. The body then pisses out the bone's calcium. Furthmore, what I am saying has been documented by independent reasearchers: A University of Chicago study in 1992 found that big eaters of meat lost an average of 90mg of calcium per day, while a 2003 study done by the University of Applied Sciences in Germany examined vegan's intake of calcium vs calcium pissed out and found that vegans gained on balance 119mg of calcium a day. Lemme see your studies.

No, I am informing you as to what the Scientific Method is. It is a process by which we prove or disprove theories. Studies are only one of the steps. Studies are a part of the Method, please tell me your not trying to argue with of all things! Vegetarianism, yes, we can argue that intelligibly, but every 5th grade science student learns the Scientific method! Again, I ask you to show me these studies! We can quote scientific finds all day, but I want to see some documented proof! Besides, there is just as many studies saying Vegetarianism is unhealthy, so it’s a 2 edged sword.

A study is an application of the scientific method. It goes from stateing the problem to analysis. All that is left is drawing conclusions. Hmmm, documented calcium loss of people who eat vs vs. vegans gaining calcium. Conclusion: a vegetarian diet is good for you. You want another study? Sure, I got plenty. HOw about the much publizized China health study done by Cornell and Oxford studies that looked at the effects of availibility of meat is certain areas. The results? To quote T. Colin, Ph.D:"The China Health Project's Primary finding is that the Chinese who eat the least
fat and animal products have substantially lower rates of cancer, heart attack, and several other chronic
degenerative diseases."

Never heard of that. That is the first time I have ever heard someone say Chicken, when prepared properly, is unhealthy!

Simply because you never heard it before doesn't make it untrue. The arguement still stands.

As for Carl Lewis, let me ask you with, when did he win his Gold Medals? In the 1984 Olympics he own four gold medals, the first from the100. With a burst that was clocked at 28 mph at the finish, Lewis won by eight feet, a record. He had a 10-year unbeaten streak in all events, till the 1991 World Championships, he got owned by Mike Powell. He started his vagen diet in 1990. The point is, in the 1980’s, when he was still an omnivore, he won more races, and by a much widen margin. He is still a great athlete, but he got progressive worst as he started eating his new diet. He made the hall of fame in 1984, and not 1990 or any time later.

You need to check your facts before you post something like this. He set the world record for the 100-meter dash, won two gold medals, and had the best long jump series of his career while on the diet. I get this tidbet from Runner's World, 1992 edition. Furthermore, the diet hasn't been weakening him, he even saidn in a interview that his best year in athletics was when he started the diet. He also continues to tour the country and explain the merits of a vegan diet. Now, if it weaken him, why is he such a proponet of a vegan diet?

Bro, look up “gorilla diet” on a search engine, and look for a Zoology or otherwise scientific site, not a vegan site, and they will confirm what I have said. Gorilla’s diet are different because their philology is different. Call me when you have black hair growing all over your body and you can climb trees with your toes!

I got bored. I looked up "gorilla diet" on Yahoo. I found more then a barginned for: Go to http://www.scienceupdate.com/april00.html
and click on April 13. It explains all you need to know. The larger colon simply allows the ape to be stronger than a man. Even with our small colon, we can get our nessesary protein from plants, like our ancestors who we share 99.9% of our DNA with.

Is it? Really? Show me, and NOT in a Vegetarian site, either. Show me in a Scientific site! I just finished looking though “the Textbook of Medical Physiology” by Arthur C. Guyton, M.D., and it said nothing about Protein being stored in the bones. Are you telling me the foremost textbook for medical knowledge is wrong and you are right? Product some proof, buddy, or don’t quote science!

I'm not sayign the foremost medical knowlege is wrong, as I have shown foremost medical science supports my side. Maybe you should read that textbook more closly and read about how the body neutralized the sufuric acid formed from animo acids. The only conclusive study showing a porblem with vegetarianism is showing how vegan diets lack B12. An so, I suggestto all vegetarians to taek B12 suppliments, like what I'm doing.

I agree with you and the person who replied. Creationism is religion at is core, but its proponents try to put a scienific mask on it by calling it "Intelligent Design Theory" Bullshit. Such topics do not use the scientific method and assumes unscientific principles, hence it is not science, but religion. Teaching religion in public schools is a violation of the wall between church and state. I hope the State Supreme Court shoots down that curriculum.

This is my take on the socialist v capitialism debate: competition must be balanced with equality. A pure capitialism leads to horrific corruption, as seen all thoguh the 19th century, where companies were free to lie about their products and discourage competition. Anti-trust legislation stop monopolies from forming, which is a good thing, and monopolies abuse the market. Hell look at Mircosoft. Capitalism works, but onlt if there is suffent rules and regualtions to ensure companies "play by the rules"

At 3/25/03 12:31 AM, implodinggoat wrote: I don't care about UN resolutions. I want to be rid of Saddam because he is one of the few true tyrants left on this planet and one that can be rather easily desposed of.

Hate to burst your bubble, but there are tyrants everywhere. If we were to attack all dictators, the US would be at war with most of the Mideast, mostr of Africa, China, and North Korea. As we can see, there is an obvious problem trying to be the world's police force.

Here is my opinion on when a war would be justified: A war would be justified against Iraq if we find evidence that he is a major threat to our allies. They helped us during the war on terror; we protect them. THer trouble is, when Bush attack, he did not have sufficient evidence. Powell showed the world evidence that Iraq waws hiding something but did not know what. What Bush should have done is to militarily back the inspectors. If the inspectors weredenied access to a place, the military would engage in "aggesive negotiations" to get them access. OF Saddam attacked the troops, then Iraq dies, as a coalition much bigger that the current one would have formed.

Techniclly, Bush was preparing for Iraq to break the Geneva convention. According the Geveva Convention, gurrila warfare and dressing up as civilians are outlawed. Our milirary planned for gurrilla warfare. Come to think of it, in every war America has fought since the convention, the other side violated the convention. It's no big deal, really.

I think it started after the fall of the Soviet Union. Once that happened, many Americans became arrogent and felt themselves to be untouchable. Each casualty is a direct assult on this mindset.

At 3/23/03 01:19 AM, MuscleHed wrote:

At 3/22/03 11:37 PM, Disguy_youknow wrote: I have been a vegetarian for 1 1/2 years for health and will probably continue for the rest of my life. To those who say vegetarianism in unhealthy, you are wrong. Here are several facts showing how beign a vegetarian is good for you.

FACT: Animal proteins, especially those found in red meat are not heathy. They are processed very inefficiently and generate excess amino acids which the body can't absorb. These excess amino acids weaken bone structure. Hense vegetable proteins found in lentils and nuts are better for you.

Animal protein IS healthy. You have been lied to if you think it is not. Yes, EXCESS animal protein will make Animal protein excess in your body. For a time. Don’t buy into the garbage that is stays in your system. It is crapped out. Lentils and nuts don’t have all the proper Amino Acids. See, out of the tons of Amino Acids, there are 13 essential, and the only way to get all 13 in the right amount is though animal protein! Lentils and nuts don’t have all 13. They all have bits and pieces. On top of that, do you realize how little protein is in them? Do you realize how much your would have to eat to get proper protein?

I never said excess animal proteins stay in the system. I said they were not absorbed, which is true. They are broken down after they linger on the bone structure, and then are finally crapped out. Furthmore, the amount of protein the human body needs has been seriously miscalculated by "experts" who work for meat companies. "Proper protein" isn't that much say experts which are unalligned to meat companies, and the 2 or 3 amino acids that meat has which vegetables largly don't aren't needed to be comsumed as they are the type which are easily manufactured by the body.

FACT: It has been shown through many studys that vegetarianism increases longegivity

What studies? I can find studies staying the Adkins diet is healthier, doesn’t mean it is true. I can find studies that say being a vegetarians is unhealthy, even! Studies don’t mean anything, studies are just a stepping stone on the scientific method. They have a study that proves everything under the sun.

Okay, here you are pretty much attacking the scientific method as a whole. Proper studies use the scientific method, they are not a "stepping stone" as you say. The studies about the Atkins diet focus largly on wieght loss and not longegivity. As for the studies which say vegetarianism is bad, almost all of them use surveys, which are extremely unreliable. Since vegetarianism has been around for a while, accurate demographic data has been compiles and shown that vegetarians live, on average 7.4 years longer then omnivores.

FACT: Red meat is notiorious for having bad cholesterol that clog up arteries and cause heart attacks.

So, what is wrong with Fish, poultry, and dairy protein? You can also by Lean Beef, that is health for you. Even pork has been lowered in fat now!

My comment about red meat was largly to rebut a earlier statement about how red meat is good. Fish, poultry, beef, and pork are damaging to the heart as well, just not as much as red meat.

FACT: One does not need to eat meat in order to be strong. Several Olympic athletes have been vegetarians. Moreover, look at gorillas.

Tell me the name of one? The only Professional Athlete who is close to being a vegetarianism I know of is a Body Builder in the Golden Age named Bill Pearl. And he did eat Dairy and eggs. However, there where at least 20 other guys better then him at the time, and they ALL eat red and white meat. GORILLAS? WHAT!? You are basing your knowledge on that of another animal!? DO you realize how unique and specific human philology is? Clearing not. And this is based on fact! If you want to talk about animals, what about Tigers? What about loins? What about Bears? What about wolves? You apes friends have a longer digestive tracked and a large colon, so that the plants stay in their longer, and digest more. They have evolved to a fully vegetarians diet for Millions of years of only eating Plants. We human, like lions, tigers, and bears, never evolved to the level where we can eat all vegetables and fruits and get the full benefit like apes and other animals do.

Tell you the name of one other than Bill Peral? Sure. How about Carl Lewis? He set the world record for the 100-meter dash, won two gold medals, and had the best long jump series of his career wqhen he went on a vegetarian diet. I am not making the point that being a vegetarian makes you strong. I'm saying that you don't need meat to be strong; you just need exercise. As for your speal about gorrilas, consider this. We share 99% of our DNA with monkeys. The type on monkey we evolved from ate plants whenever possible and only turned to meat as a last resort when other food stuffs were not availible. We don't get as much as pure vegetarians from vegetables, but we get guite enough. Your comment on lions, tigers and, bears simply are not applicible, as those animals have digestive processes much different from ours, and can deal with the negative parts of animal protein.

Just to set the record straight...

Well, try again. And please, be more careful next time when you label things as facts.

You agreed with the my lkast three facts; you just differed in your interpretation. Moreover, my first point is backed by science, the methodology to determine facts.

Something you all should know is that no form of contriception is 100% effective. Birth Control pills may not work properly, or condoms may have mircoscopic leaks. This means even save, smart girls may befaced with an unwanted pregnancy.

As for partial birth, that really toes the line between dependent life and independent life. One is protected, the other isn't. I'm anbicilant on this particual type of abortion, and I think that the question of legality should be left to the states, not to the federal governent.