At 3/25/08 09:43 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Nothing illegal.

Agreed.

Immoral and hypocritical (as they are supposedly the party of the people), but not illegal.

At 3/21/08 03:13 PM, Al6200 wrote: I don't seem to see a lot of strong answers from the democrats, although I trust that both Clinton and Obama would be sensible enough to only leave if we know that such will be a good policy.

Yeah, from what I've heard from Obama, he's not afraid to get the job done. I feel like he and McCain are saying essentially the same things, except they are twisting them to appease their audiences. McCain says that we will stay in as long as we need to get the job done, even if it's 100 years (an exaggeration of course, but his point is clear.) Obama says that we will begin pulling out soon after he takes presidency, but he doesn't say that it's a complete withdrawal. This isn't too different from what we are doing now, as we are already pulling troops out.

Also, I have a lot of hope in Obama. His stance on a few issues is regrettable to me (I'm a Republican), but I still think that he's going to do a good job.

I'm with you. I'm neither Republican or Democrat, but I do agree. It's good to vote for the person, not the party.

At 3/21/08 10:58 AM, Al6200 wrote: Nah, you just didn't give it long enough.

It took two days for my first response, haha.

I watched it, and I was interested in the neutrality and detail of the reporters. The gritty information that CNN doesn't show.

Especially that most Reuters reporters have died from US attacks, not insurgents.

I guess there's not much else I can say. The US should have never entered in the first place, but now that we're there we have to stay in place until Iraq is stable.

That's my opinion too.

Well, I suppose I see your point, BBS.

Enjoy the information if you choose.

At 3/20/08 09:52 AM, JackPhantasm wrote:

At 3/20/08 01:48 AM, Tancrisism wrote:
Absolutely. If you presented proof and evidence that a god exists, I will immediately bow down to it (if that's what it desires). But we can be quite confident that won't happen, so until that day I will remain an atheist.

What if I were to say that God is just matter. He's not really sentient, but he does make up the universe, with his matter.

Then, according to your definition of God, it probably exists (as there is matter in the universe). But that's not the standard definition of God.

At 3/19/08 09:29 PM, Malachy wrote: Isn't drinking alone one of the signs of alcoholism?

It worked for George Thorogood.

Here is the link to Reuters' history of the Iraq War. It has interesting profiles of three reporters/photographers heavily involved in the war, and then a fantastic timeline (well outlined, with videos and photographs) of what has gone on.

It's a good resource, but it is very gritty. Be warned that there are many images that aren't particularly pleasant to view (such as ridiculously large pools of blood). I've noticed that a lot of people haven't had an extremely clear picture of the war, and though it's true that perhaps viewing the actual scenes of war is not a good way to develop a clear opinion of the war (as it biases us towards emotions as opposed to fact) it's a very good resource to some insight as to what our boys are facing (and what they have caused, if you'll take that route).

At 3/20/08 01:24 AM, Elfer wrote: Of course agnostics are just a subset of atheists, but lots of people are too dumb to understand that atheists are open to the possibility of god.

Absolutely. If you presented proof and evidence that a god exists, I will immediately bow down to it (if that's what it desires). But we can be quite confident that won't happen, so until that day I will remain an atheist.

But yeah, we haven't "stopped wondering". That's a load of shit. We are just leaning more towards the conclusion that no matter what is provided, a "god" is not what the answer would be if we could actually get answers. Capice?

At 3/19/08 01:40 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: 147

hi

I guess it's right, what Isaac Asimov said was right, "You're too damn educated, I knew you couldn't be very smart."

It's also important to note some things. For instance, in China, I highly doubt the farmers who hardly have electricity are going to be able to take the SAT tests, whereas in the US everybody has the chance to. And in developing countries, whoever found the SAT average for Sudan should be awarded some sort of prize.

You've got to realize, Cellardoor, that in the case of the US and people's views of it, the more you argue the more you lose.

And, in turn, the more we lose.

Honestly, I should post in here more regularly. I am just not on NG enough, truly.

*Pat on the shoulder

At 3/17/08 02:19 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 3/16/08 08:50 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

"But but but, what if the shooter wants to surrender (seemingly after killing people)?"

Actually, I'd say that's a legitimate question.

It's also one with a quite easy answer; then he can surrender. If, after committing a rampage, one wants to set a new president and go down peacefully, then he can drop his gun far from his body, lie down, put his hands behind his head, and wait a few hours for the police to come.

Absolutely, but that is entirely up to the judgement of those who are witnessing his massacre. If someone starts shooting people in a school, they are forfeiting their rights to certainty; if the people around deem him unsafe while he is trying to surrender, they have all the right in the world to incapacitate him. They could at least shoot out his arms and legs so the bastard can't do anything but breathe (and hopefully moan).

But anyway, it's an interesting idea. I'm not sure if I'd feel any safer with everyone having guns as with no one having guns, but I look forward to seeing how it turns out. Statistics say it should help.

Why can't we all just get along?

I found another reason to be pro-Obama:

http://www.wayofthemind.org/2008/02/21/o bama-on-religion/

The most moderate religious statement I've heard from any politician ever.

Probably, from games I've played consistantly, either Civ III (largest map; complete global conquest) on the 4th difficulty setting at about 8 months, or Medieval Total War (complete gobal conquest) on the normal difficulty (at about 8-9 months too).

I still have a picture of it, actually. I was the French. It took 175 turns, which, if you know the game, is a rather long amount of time.

When the thing first came out it was definitely a landmark in Flash. That's like saying you hate Goldeneye; it shows that you have no sense of value.

At 3/15/08 04:43 PM, TheBlackDahliaMurder wrote: Actually, the SATs do not at all test on how much you have learned. Apparently, it only tests up to 3rd grade math, and that it's really about application.

That's not entirely true. A lot of it is logic, but most of it is based around highschool geometry.

I did pretty well on them, although I will agree, the 6 hours I spent in total concerning the SATs I will never get back.

I'll probably just come and go like I do until I finally forget to come back.

There is a god!!

At 3/10/08 01:03 AM, hocusPokus wrote: Im gonna say a few things, then leave this topic alone;
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT!? HILLARY WOULD NOT BE A GREAT PRESIDENT! IM SAYING MAYBE SHE WOULD BE A BETTER PRESIDENT

And we are saying "No sir. You are incorrect."

At 3/10/08 03:26 AM, Bokushi wrote:

At 3/10/08 12:08 AM, Z-Ezekiel wrote: If you want proof of the Bible that depends what you are asking. The main thing the Bible wants is faith not belief through evidence. What comes first is faith then experience then proof. :

I disagree. You want physical, scientific proof that the Bible is true? Easily done.

So you find various sections of the Bible which show things that could be interpreted as scientific facts? Fantastic. So that must mean everything in the Bible is true.

I could read Harry Potter and notice that they ride on trains. Trains are real, so flying brooms must be too with your logic.

Edit/addition:

I'm actually reading up on it more, and the historical situation is actually much less clear than I may have made it seem:

In the 30's, during the British Mandate of Palestine, hundreds of thousands of Jews legally immigrated. Due to some tampering by the Brits, the Palestinians led a huge violent revolt, destroying Jewish farms and from what it seems killing some. So the situation has never been friendly to either side.

At 3/10/08 12:12 AM, fli wrote:

At 3/9/08 11:05 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: Like British officials giving away British land? I followed that part.

You got to provide a link because this is the first time I've heard of Israel being a British colony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Man date_of_Palestine

Not quite a colony, but de facto very similar if not essentially the same.

You don't agree with Israel, and suddenly you're placed in the ranks of David Duke and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Exactly my point. Israel should not have been created in the late 40's, but now that it is something has got to give. Regardless, though, Israel was Palestine for many years under the Turks. Then WW1 comes along, the Turks are gone; Israel becomes run by Britain. Then WW2 comes along, and the Palestinians suddenly find that they no longer live in Palestine, but in a place called "Israel", and are being forcefully detained. Of course they are going to fight back. That was then, though.

Today, the situation is much less clear. The Israelis use force brutally, but the Palestinians have terrorist groups gaining political power. Taking sides is definitely a bad move, but ideally I favor the lack of an Israeli state. Strategically, for the US, this is unthinkable, and it's an unpopular idea, and perhaps now that all has been said and done it's unpractical. In a perfect world, though, it wouldn't have been created.

To the one who messages about Palestinian propaganda, I find that amusing seeing as how a large population believes in some "Zionist conspiracy".

And, for the record, I am part Jewish. None of my opinions about Israel is based on any lack of respect for the Jews or their faith.

At 3/9/08 02:00 PM, zoolrule wrote: ffs i'm sick of it already...
im starting to realize how geniuses of propaganda are the Palestinians.

Have you read anything about the history of modern Israel?

You seriously should, it will open your eyes.

Honestly, I am essentially anti-Israel. I feel like it was wrong to create the nation in the first place, as it was at the disregard of the large population of Palestinians there who were then treated miserably for quite a long time.

That being said, my sympathy for Palestine is dwindling because of the groups like Hamas. It is true that Israel really overdoes it (killing 158 people including over 50 civilians because of 2 dead soldiers), but Hamas recently threw parades celebrating the Jerusalem school shooting.

It is wrong to put Hamas as one's primary image of the Palestinians, but god damn. They are one of the more powerful political powers there, probably due to desperation, but any political party who condones and celebrates (!) killing civilians is just fucked up.

A Wiki link to what I'm talking about (Suck it up).

Discuss.

Let me make this clear:

Religion is not a basis with which to describe someone as being more or less intelligent. What is your definition of intelligence? Ability to understand and comprehend the world in a way similar to your beliefs?

Don't be an elitist

(This is coming from an atheist, by the way).

At 3/8/08 01:25 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 3/8/08 03:19 AM, Tancrisism wrote: The Electoral College was made by intellectual giants, yes, but it was made (as many political scientists believe and historical documents and evidence and even the constitution itself show) to be temporary.

The writing of the constitution was a very experimental time, and they would probably be shocked to see the electoral college still in use.

I don't know that they would be all that surprised...nor do I think the EC (or the Constitution for that matter) are the same as they were back then.

If not suprised, they would at least note it with interest, though I still contend the suprise idea.

First of all, they probably would not like the idea that our party system is as strong as it is (although, they would probably be glad that it is relatively weak relative to the vast majority of parliamentary systems).

Agreed.

Secondly, I think they would still argue that the EC is a good idea. Millions of voters would effectively be disenfranchised because candidates would flock to major cities neglecting sparsly populated states and rural America.

I don't see any weight in this argument. Doesn't the electoral college already disenfranchise the popular vote?

Finally, I think they would also dislike universal suffarage. There does seem to be a corresponding drop in the quality of candidates with every addition of more voters. (NOTE: this is not a racial or gender thing.) You get people who are astute on the issues, but you also get people who cast uninformed votes. Furthermore, the uninformed out number the informed...so guess what the candidates dedicate their time, money and energy into? Media manipulation.

Ah, I see. You are much more cynical towards the common man. This is something that I could never share, perhaps because I came from a very rural area with very informed people (and one of a relatively direct democracy, New England).

The problem is how do you make it where everyone who is informed casts a vote? You can't do it based on income or education. Like I've said before, I've known MDs and PhDs who are very ignorant when it comes to politics. Same thing with income; I've known some very astute poor ppl who know the issues and how things work. That's why I hate "get out and vote" campaigns. If a celebrity telling you to vote is what gets your ass to (or even figures into your calculation to) vote...then you should NOT be voting.

Regardless, I would rather have the vote in the hands of the people than in the politicians. I'm more cynical to those in power than to the people. You are never going to have it so that way only informed people vote, as that is vastly over ambitious. Assuming that the electors are also unbiased and informed might not be the best way to go either.

I wouldn't say that we should ditch the representative democracy for a direct one, as that would be just as effective as communism on a large scale. We should have a mix of the two; and to me a direct election could help things. Al Gore very well may have been a better president than Bush these past 8 (or maybe for just the prior 4) years, in which case the people may have been right and the electors wrong.

I actually found a really good bit about Hillary vs. Obama as senators (concluding with Obama being better, though it started out skeptical towards him).

Here it is.