NBVegita

Of course if you added Obama to the National Debt scale it would be considerably higher than Bush's. Also the numbers for the jobs are from the democratic calculation of "Jobs saved or created" which any statistician worth his muster knows is code for "let's make up any number and pass it off because you cannot possibly measure the number of jobs 'saved'". Also note that the top graph shows the natural course of any recession (you can simply only loose so many jobs before you cannot keep losing jobs at the same pace) and also shows that unemployment did not decrease during that time except during one period. If you also note the graph illustrates that as job loss was decreasing before Obama could even pass anything to influence the economy. The second graph also doesn't show you that the 1992-2000 new jobs were propagated by the .com bubble which promptly burst in 2001 as it needed to. I think the massive surplus of jobs from 39-52 is pretty self evident. Simply put, take everything with a grain of salt. Both sides will do their best to "massage" the data to prove a point.

I think your first mistake Sever is to assume that your religion plays a major impact on your life. Yes for the small minority of people who are stoutly religious, the religion you take is a stark impact on your life. For the majority of people who practice casual religion, which I would say is the majority of all religions, everywhere, short of tying up your Christmas eve's and Sunday mornings it really has no bearing on your life. I concede that if you are planning to become a zealot in your religion, yes it is very life changing, if you plan to practice casually as the majority of people do, it is not nearly as important as MANY other life decisions. How can a child possibly make an informed decision about anything? That is why as a minor your parents are charged with making decisions for you. They choose what to teach you and what not to teach you. Simply put they cannot "give" a boy religion if he does not want to learn it. Yes they can force him to learn of it, but that does not mean in his heart he will accept it. I would say that is only true to a point. They have an innate curiosity to learn what they deem interesting. Most children if given the opportunity would never attend school. Simply put, for most children learning math and English is not fun whilst learning to play ball is. I would contend the opposite. I believe the difference between an educated man and a non educated man is far more vast than religion differentiates. I say that with the caveat of leaving out extremists on either side. Simply put religion is not a major impact on your life. First, there is an equal chance of religion being true and false as neither side can produce any evidence to prove or disprove God. In your mind there may be a large chance of it being false, but in reality there is equal chance of God existing or not existing. Second it is up to the caretakers of each child to choose what to teach their children and what not to. Simply teaching a child religion does not mean he will follow that religion. If anything I find it can be quite beneficial to enforce morals with religion, which is why I believe it has been around for so long.

I guess my standpoint is that simply because a man or woman does not relay that they have doubts to you, it does not mean they don't exist. This is simply a theoretical argument as is yours but I again state that I don't believe any man or woman holds religious beliefs without some amount of doubt, no matter how large or small.

The same can be said about almost anything. Adults will always tell children things usually trying to benefit them in some way. You hold a lot of your beliefs simply by what your parents did or didn't tell you in life. IF anything I usually find that if people are forced to do something they either embrace it or reject it completely.

I agree that I think this is blown out of proportion. I doubt that if the 21 parents they could find willingly allowed their children to go, that they stole the other twelve from their cribs. I believe this says it all: "A number of parents in the badly-damaged village said they would find it difficult to provide for their children if they came back."

I would say that most Christians will vehemently defend their faith if it is being attacked by those outside of their faith. The same could be said of any group of people. I would dare say that the majority of Christians will not openly tell you they have doubts as there are many things you will not tell others openly. Will they deny that they have doubts? Maybe. Maybe not. That depends on the person. Sometimes by denying it to you they're denying it to themselves. I would go along and say that I've never met a Christian who has held his faith with out a single doubt. One of the basic fundamentals in the Christian faith is that it is not wrong to question your faith/religion as that is how you find answer to the tough questions in life. I don't believe there is a person on this planet that does not have even a small amount of doubt in their beliefs, most notably religion. Even your most vehement zealots although outwardly powerful still have doubts, no matter how big or small they be. That goes beyond the Christian religion.

I would disagree Sever. It would be more accurate to say that faith is believing in something in spite of the doubts you have.

But why is it only wrong to cause someone physical pain (as punishment) and not emotional? Why is there a division? And I would ask you to elaborate on why it is wrong to cause someone physical pain for punishment.

The problem is that the left doesn't give two shits about the right either. The election in MA just goes to prove that the country doesn't like when one side, be it Democrat or Republican, tries to pass items, most notably major items without having the support of ANYONE on the opposing side. So now that he doesn't have a filibuster proof majority he can't do anything? You mean he simply can't do anything he wants. Ultimately you need at least some support from both sides to pass something that is fair. It is not good for the country to have either side be able to pass items without any support from the other side. I would say Obama's biggest problem was that he wasn't bipartisan enough to gather any republican support, but just hinting at it has lost him democratic support. I also think as a whole people don't agree with how (and how much) he spent the money on his stimulus package or the health care plan as it is today. Those are two very big topics that are very critical for a lot of people. Heck it took trying to push through this health care plan to get a Republican elected in a state that hasn't had a Republican representative in nearly 4 decades.

If you want to be technical, The Americas are two distinct continents (plural). You have North America, which is a continent (singular), South America which is a continent (singular). Technically speaking America (as a singular) does not have a direct reference to either continent or country. Now if you are speaking casually America can be termed to represent either of the American continents (North America and South America) or the American country the United States of America. Get your shit right.

So the soldiers who ended Hitler's rule are bad guys? If someone tries to hurt you and you hurt yourself defending them, you're a bad guy? Police officers hurt people, I guess they're bad guys? Boxers hurt each other, I guess they're bad guys? Damn I guess I'm happy I'm a bad guy.

I ask you now, why doesn't a judge go to jail for sentencing a man to jail? Why don't the guards and wardens? Why is it only with the "eye for an eye" concept do you think that the person distributing punishment deserves punishment, but in our current system they don't? That is very hypocritical.

I would agree that is true. In your original post I assumed you had meant it in a more egotistical vs practical manner.

I would say that most people pursue degrees so that they can get decent jobs. You can have all the education in the world, but most companies will simply not consider you for a position unless you have that "honorific" piece of paper. I'm going for my PhD right now in electrical engineering for two reasons. First that I work for a utility company so the more advance my knowledge in a subject directly related to my company, the more job opportunities await me. Second I would like to teach part time at my alma mater as my "retirement" job, for which I NEED a PhD to do so. No one in my family (except my wife) or friends even knows I have a masters let alone that I'm half way to my PhD. If you're going to get a degree, or avoid a degree based on what others opinions of you will be, you're going to school for the wrong reason.

I would have to agree with Simul. I don't believe he was making a direct comparison to the actions of the KKK and the actions of Iran. I think we was more trying to relate a group we know as historically bad and corrupt to Iran. That's my interpretation.

I went to college on scholarship to, coming from a lower class family. Yet the only reason why I was able to get my scholarship was because I could go to school for basically free (just the small amount of tax money pulled out). If I had to pay to go to a private elementary, secondary and high school my parents couldn't have afforded it. There won't be state and federal scholarships for those programs and unless you're expecting your neighbors to pay, you and I wouldn't have had an education period. Yes it is. The reason being is that simply because the road is in front of your house doesn't mean you own it. You don't choose who can or cannot drive on it, how it is cared for, or not cared for. The point is that roads are for public use and are as such cared for by the public as a whole. If you wake up and there is a pot hole out front, you have no idea where it came from or why and being everyone and anyone can use it, anyone and everyone should pay for it. Social workers are paid by the state/county governments depending on where you're located. Only a small amount of social work is volunteer. They need to be paid somehow. As for charities and families. If I got fired today my family can't support me. Realistically no mid-lower class family could do that. As for charities, they can't even raise enough money to complete their causes today, now you're saying they need to expand exponentially? One advantage is that your lower class would get much small because they'd all starve to death. You're assuming that you can own the roads? Well that’s great but technically you'd have to get permission to drive on each and every road, from each and every road owner. Great. Now what if you need to take a trip? What if you want to go to the hospital but the only hospital you can go to you can't drive to because you don't have permission? What if someone gets mad at you and buys all of the roads around your house and says you can't drive on them? I mean the concept that people/companies can individually own roads is ridiculous. The only place I had to play as a kid was the city park by my house. If you make me have to pay to use it, I can no longer play at that park. Where am I going to play now? Most people who would be willing to pay will either make they private little community parks where only a select few will be allowed or they simply will let them die. Oh really? Look at it this way if you are a single person making say 30k a year, with a standard deduction of $5700. Your taxable income is now $24,300. For that income (based on 2009) you were only supposed to pay $3231 in federal tax. Now divide that per month you're paying $269.25 a month. State tax will vary by state obviously but even in NYS with a high state tax, you're paying maybe a total of $300 a month. Now tell me how far you think $300 will get you when you need to pay for: Private education Road privileges Fire protection added into your house insurance and or rent Police protection (as a possibility) A park (possibly) Donations to a charity or maybe even helping out a family member if they've lost their job Take away ss so now you've gotta help your parents retire or just watch them starve to death. Ultimately if you privatized everything you're simply going to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. For example, rich people pay the same as poor people for cable. $100 a month for someone only making 30k a year is a much bigger expense than for someone making 300k a year. The same would happen with everything privatized. The lower class right now gets a "discount rate" as you would look at it, by the government for all of these services based on how much you make. A pay what you can system if you were. Now without that system, the rich will stay rich, actually may even become richer and the poor will simply become poorer. I am not for socializing but there is a difference between trying to make something that is difficult already (having a poor to lower class person jump out of their "class") and make it exponentially harder. I don't support every government program or the way they spend money, but there are a great majority of programs that I fully support the government funding with our tax money. Based on your system we would have a stagnant society. It is hard to progress as a society or a country when every person is out for themselves.

Hey Dr. Brain, can you hit on a few of the points in my post?

I do side with sever on a bunch of this (wow two topics at once! Hell might be freezing over) There are a lot of things done by the government that could be privatized, but most of them shouldn't. I would assume you believe everything else should be privatized (correct me if I'm wrong). I'm just going to hit a few points (not sure if they've already been hit) why this is bad. Education. If you privatize education beyond college, you will create the same problem with college education. At first the prices will be reasonable, but then they will increase price just as colleges have. You also have the problem that now if you come from a lower class family chances are you cannot even get a high school education. You would effective increase the class gap in the country exponentially. To sever's point on fire and police. How are you going to fund them? Without funding, you've got no fire house or police station. So either you're going to have to pay a monthly fee to be protected by the fire and police or you don't get protection? How else would a privatized company be able to fund the salaries and equipment needed? It's not like putting out fires has a capital return. Not to mention what about police force jurisdiction? If I only pay for police in Liverpool, NY and I go to Boston, MA do I have to pay a visitors fee to get protection? Or is it that they'll stop the bad guy, but they'll only arrest him if I pay the fee, otherwise they let him back at me? Why would they give me free protection? That would be like you walking into a massage parlor for a massage, being charged $200 and when I come in they say "Oh we'll give you a free massage because this guy already paid." It would NEVER work. Roads and highways. Again you're either going to have to pay a monthly fee to get something fixed, or you're going to have to pay by occasion. Maybe they charge $2000 to fix that big pot hole in front of your house or you just have to live with it. Social work. Unemployment. Snow plowing. Street cleaning. Parks and recreation. Prison. I mean the list goes on. Whats worse is some of those things are hard to differentiate between who pays and who doesn't. Are they supposed to look up your house if it's on fire to see if you're current with payments? How about if you don't pay to have the roads plowed, but everyone else does? Should they revoke your license? Same things with the highway, if you don't have a receipt and your driving on a fixed highway you didn't pay for, you'll get a ticket/arrested? If you privatize police, what incentive do they have to actually do their job? What if one privatized police force finds out another is corrupt, can they arrest them all? There are thousands of what if's. I'm just asking questions if you can give me your answers. I would almost guarantee you would end up paying more money in private fee's than you would from taxes.

Yes depending on your definition Yes but do you. 90-95% of the 'greenhouse effect' is water vapor and clouds. The other 5-10% is a mixture of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. Did you know that throughout the history of the planet the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased in accordance to temperature increases? Did you also know that we were in a 'mini-ice age' until the 1800's? Did you know that we are on a natural cycle to be increasing temperatures? The only way you can support an argument for global warming is by ignoring the climate studies beyond 150 years ago. If you account for all of the planets past climate and co2 history we are in perfect cycle with the historic climate cycles of the planet. Back on topic to taxes.

lol a more probable outcome: loop; every one has guns. everyone is informed that whoever does not want violence is to put down their gun everyone who puts down their gun is colored blue. now they are on a team everyone who still has their gun is colored red. now everyone is informed of their new colours and all blues are requested to pick up the guns, as they all have a common enemy. everyone who is red and still armed, kills everyone who is blue before they pick back up their weapons. everyone is informed that whoever does not want violence, is not to ask us to put down our guns. end;

There is a huge difference at poking fun at and trying to eliminate. In the areas it REALLY mattered, America was just as hated before Bush as we were with and after Bush.

I agree with what most of the others have posted. What G.W. did hurt our international image little to none. We've been hated ever since we opted out of isolationism and decided that everyone's business is our business.

lol so basically what you're telling me is that you won't answer my question as to your opinion on what is fair or not. I'm not tying you down to any preexisting concept of what is fair or not. I'm asking what you personally believe to be fair or unfair about this situation. It's a very simple concept. I ask your opinion, you give the opinion. Next we'll try coloring inside the lines. Why, because you are morally opposed to it? My argument has been about fairness not as a crime deterrent, you mentioned that it wouldn't deter crime and I'm simply asking you to support that. Where am I stalling or being unclear? If anything you are the one who has done his best to avoid giving answers to very simple questions. Please then give me YOUR definition of justice. As for your human rights, I believe that if one man takes another man's human rights away from him, he has forfeited his own rights in the same capacity. (To be clear, he forfeits his rights in the manner that he took the rights from another being. I'm not saying that all human rights are lost once one singular right is trod upon) So through all of this pandering, all you're basically saying is that you don't believe in 'eye for an eye' because it goes against your morals? If that is not correct, please feel free to correct me.

Once again I'm asking for YOUR definition of fairness. You can try to skirt the question forever but in your mind, you must have some concept of what you believe is fair and that which you don't. I am asking for you to apply your concept of fairness. Can you prove that 'eye for an eye' punishment would not prevent future harm? A second question, "bring to justice" means to bring in front of a court or trial to receive punishment for misdeeds. (paraphrased) So based on the above, why would justice need to imply prevention of future misdeeds? Or are you saying that your definition of justice is not to exact a punishment for a crime committed, but to enact a non violent punishment in hopes of deterring the future crime?

It has a great bearing on the definition of what I'm saying. Saying all retribution is justice is nothing like saying fair retribution is justice. I am simply elaborating that I never made the initial claim you stated. Nothing with you is clear. You never answer a question directly, if you answer it at all. I asked for a simple answer to a question. Yes or no would have done just fine. I asked why it is or isn't fair based on YOUR definition of fairness. Stating that it is fair under certain definitions, most notably that I've stated that I define it as fair, is simply restating the obvious. For the third time: Can you please tell me why, in accordance to your definition of fairness why 'eye for an eye' is an unfair or fair form of justice and elaborate on your reasoning. Can you please elaborate why you believe that fair retribution is not justified?