Yes, but not through the government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Neither! However, I would not be surprised if the majority picked Che, the reason being (and they will not realize this) is because Che was killed (basically by Fidel) before ever reaching a position of power. Everyone looks good when they die young. Guaranty you if he had lived as long as Castro he would be just as fucked up as any other altruistic scumbag dictator.
I think its the worst way. Yes some students will do well, some of them completely understand the material, concepts and requirements. These students are usually of a particular learning type and have adapted well to the system in which they are taught. Others, who do not test well are not necessarily less bright, on the contrary most of them extremely intelligent, creative and innovative (which is what our society needs, innovators) however they don't often successfully conform to the system in which they are forced. If the test is to decide who is the best reciter of information an exam would be able to decide that. If you want test for who is the smartest an exam will not find them.
"You say that a murderer has lost their right to live. What are your reasons for thinking so?"
THEY MURDERED SOMEONE!
how do you think murder should be punished?
I'm not saying that the person who physically puts the murder to death is without blame or wrong doing, if thats what your asking. There are ways around that situation; for instance, a murderer (after being found guilty) could be given an inter tube and dropped off in the middle of the ocean =) My point is after someone commits murder, they are no longer entitled to their life, they killed their right to live when they murdered. The act of putting a murder to death is not considered "killing", its considered justice. Dose that make sense?
Its easy, a persons life is their own, more then anything else in this world. It should be treated as the most important thing in existence. When a person kills out of maliciousness, they are unjustly taking the greatest of all possessions without justifiable cause. If a person commits murder they should be stripped of all life pleasures and possibilities (including the possibility of enlightenment), since they robbed another of the same. Death is the only way to punish murder.
Killing anyone for any reason besides self defense (or defense of others)is wrong. The murder of a civilian is not a "lesser" murder then that of a cop (in my opinion) and the punishment for any and all murder should be death. I'm on this side because everyone is capable of killing, even a cop, so in a case of self defense, killing a cop is justifiable to me.
However messed up the idea of a parent granting permission for murder is, the person who actually kills someone is the only one who is responsible for it, or at least thats the way it should be.
We have, for around 10,000 years, genetically engineered our food supply. We also use viruses, deadly fungus, venom, poison and radiation to do amazing, beautiful and wonderful things. I think the majority of anti GMO (ers) are being emotionally manipulated to fall in line with some extremists agenda, ego and even greed (yes organic growers and organizations are capable of greed). It’s always good to know all views and to make sure the reason for disliking something, as amazing as GMOs, is not just because they are( at least in their mind) synonymous with a certain corporation, they are not.
I am personally against all FORCED taxation however, if there is going to be a system of forced taxation I think it should a flat rate FOR EVERYONE!
Obama offends me on a regular basis, can we send him to jail?!
My skin color is white. I refer to others skin color and race when physically describing them. When I want to insult someone I refer to their ideology, their mental capabilities and sexual organs (i.e. cunt, dick, pussy).
its not the business of anyone to control what another person does with their own body.
Acknowledging the achievements of a child, even if the child is the only one who cares about it, is creating something positive that is real and achievable. Peace and love are a subjective fantasy and displaying a bumper sticker promoting the two only conveys the owners hypocrisy, ignorance and eventual disappointment in reality.
I think they have excellent possibility. The organic, environs have made it there mission to discredit and morally stigmatize this evolution in technology for their own agenda. They have done so by paying off media sources, making an obscene amount of documentary's (design to scare, not to educate) and conducting junk science. They are (in my opinion) equivalent to to the religious powers of old trying to manipulate the masses into believing the earth is flat and only 10,000 years old. Attacking an entire field or study because one company is using it to make money is disgusting and ignorant.
i am very aware that every person on this earth thinks differently, including "liberals". However, if you ask someone, who calls himself a liberal, they will essentially say they are for legislating morality. There are some people that call themselves something els( libertarian, republican etc.) and still believe in the same ideology but I guaranty ALL self proclaimed liberals subscribe to that view. If everyone used terms as they originally where used then "common sense" wold mean something besides gun control, "gay" would mean something beside sexual orientation, feminism would mean equality not special treatment and so on. Liberalism, as it is used today, means acceptance and encouragement of total government control which is the same as socialism and communism.
They both believe that the people cannot be trusted to take car of themselves, that morality can and should be FORCED on the people and that a free market is bad. They are two sides of the same coin.
HA center of socialist and communist maybe. What do "liberals" believe Obama is to conservative on?
A liberal or liberal ideology (in my mind at least) is synonymous with socialism/communism. So a "liberal" doesn't necessarily mean a democrat but rather person that wants to dictate and legislate their moral standards on the rest of society.
Well I agree with you on that statement..............................
Again, I don't think there should be ANY age limit to drinking. Drinking itself only hurts the drinker if even that. There should not be ANY laws against DRINKING anything. I am not religious, I don't believe in God in any conventional form, but I recognize that others do and I (unlike you) do not hate them for it.
I don't know how you can call yourself an atheist and then refer to God as if he exists, and I quote "He (God) is the putrid repugnant bastard of our universe". Sounds to me like you DO believe in him.
I also dont know how you can call yourself a anarchist and be for laws, such as a drinking age limit. Do you know what atheists and anarchist mean?
I don't think it gets any more liberal then Obama... oh yeah Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot...what kind of U.S. do you want?
There should be as few laws as possible. Laws do not stop bad people from doing what they want they only allow others to punish them and remove them from society when they are broken. If everything is illegal everyone can be punished whenever government finds it convenient. Physical harm to another person and theft of property are the only things that should be punished and the only things that should be against the law. No one has the moral superiority to dictate and enforce morality on others save for God.
There you go insulting me again, does that make you feel like a big man?
Impossible? You mean like it was impossible to get alcohol during prohibition? Coke, heroine, acid and meth are all illegal, are they impossible to get? Are there no heroine overdoses?
Hahahaha.... Someone who thinks they can win an argument by insulting the other person, is nither smart nor right.
Rape, by definition is force. You cannot force a person to do something and still claim the forced had a choice. therefor, the forcer has no right to rape another even if its what they want to do with their body. want doesn't justify force.
when a person (or body) chooses to hurt (in a physical manner or theft of property) another body they should be punished for THAT crime. If a person decides to rape someone while they are intoxicated, you don't go searching for some inanimate object, past victimization or substance to blame ( i.e. past rape, alcohol etcetera.) You blame the person who made the CHOICE to rape. If alcohol was outlawed altogether do you honestly think there would be no car accidents, rapes, youths that drink or alcohol poisoning?
is a law going to stop a baby from getting alcohol poisoning?
I think your wrong. There may be SOME people who hate Obama because of the color of his skin, but in my experience the majority of people (especially of those who voted for him and that includes ethnic minorities) LOVE him for the color of his skin. That is and was all they see and that is just as bad (if not worse).
What a person decides to do with their own body should be no ones business but their own!
There should be no drinking age limit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Are we talking about Obama or Romney, I'm confused? Did Romney pass like fifty executive orders, bye passing and undermining the American people? Did Romney kill thousands of people in the middle east, in a war that he is to much of a coward to declare a war? Is Romney trying to impose his uneducated, emotional, irrational, hypocritical moral superiority on EVERYONE, whether they agree with him or not? If you would like to debate our views on Obama lets do it. If you want to talk about a hypothetical Romney presidency we could do that too.
If hating Obama makes me an asshole, then so be it. Call me, or anyone else who doesn't agree with you, any name you want if it makes you feel better about the views you have. Obama, his like minded elected posse and all citizens who voted for him are selfish, greedy, power hungry tyrants. They deserve to be hated.
All "news" on TV is biased and absent most journalistic standards. I "trust" c-span, I enjoy Fox.
Its true, the majority of consumers aren't educated, but then neither are most voters not to mention people who don't vote at all, yet their ignorance and indifference effects everything and everyone else. However, once legislation effects THEIR lives they suddenly gain an interest and become educated which is what would happen in a free market. Plus, there are (and would be) people who would make it their mission to "expose" any perceived inequality or disregard for environment, thereby helping the public stay informed. When it comes to tech patents I'm afraid I'm not very educated (LOL) in my defense though, I don't really buy the stuff its to expensive for me. That being said I would think that in a free market there would be no patents, maybe royalty's, but patents seem to stifle creativity and competition. I am not informed on the "deregulation of the Russian economy" I will have to research that, though I sincerely doubt that deregulation is what actually happened let alone caused a collapse.
If government wasnt "keeping the economy in check" then corporations would answer to and be controlled by the educated consumer (the public). If government does bad things when its involved in the economy then we should stop it from being possible.
People should be allowed to carry gun anywhere, if they feel it is necessary for their safety.
I think it should be up to the insurance company. That being said I think it (and all other pharmaceutical drugs) should be sold over the counter.
A dictatorship is never needed.................................
If I killed hundreds of thousands of my own people and was given a trial, in which I was found guilty, I don't think I could or would expect anything else. Yes we should be able to watch it if we want. Political correctness hinders progress, instigates ignorance and leads to oppression of ideas. I haven't seen it and probably wont watch it, but I wouldn't deny another access just because I don't approve of it.
Wow, your so smart. How craftily you avoid the question. I wish I knew how to win an argument by avoiding it and insulting the instigator. Bravo!
http://www.youtube.com/
It is one thing to assume that everyone is good and will not hurt you,and another to give up the means to protect yourself from the possibility that you are wrong.
Why is it wrong?.................................
I don't believe in point redistribution. Stand by your principals despite rejection and ridicule or conform to your objectors and be a sellout. don't ask me to sacrifice my morals just because I may like you. I will give you a point when I feel you deserve it. =)
Life begins at conception, I am also pro choice and I don't like abortion and wouldn't consider it except possibly if I was raped, but even then It wouldnt be an easy choice. I do think that the government should stay out of it altogether. However I understand the religious right few and thier concern and it is a legitimate one, the left doest seem to even consider the other sides view most of the time. Another good thing to consider is if a women is pregnant (and she wants and loves her unborn child) and she is attacked and the child is killed in the incident but the woman lives. I think the attacker should be charged with the child's death. If abortion is legal because the embryo is not "alive" and therefor can be "gotten rid of" then prosecuting the attacker for murder would not be possible. If it was decided that an embryo was alive starting from conception but gave women the option to kill it if they so decided, all party's could be mostly justified. The Christians could point at a woman getting an abortion and say you are a killer (and they would be right) a women could get an abortion for whatever reason she wanted without fear of being prosecuted and the person who kills a wanted baby would be punished for it.
I agree! I don't know why there arnt politicians out there willing to do this. there has to be some that want to do the job because they are passionate about the "greater good" and not about making a career for themselves. I would if I was elected, but its so damn expensive to get started. I am going to however, when my kids are a little older.
