Yes.

Marijuana hasn't been proven to be more dangerous than Alcohol or cigarettes but the US government acts like it is. I think Marijuana should be regulated and taxed like alcohol and cigarettes.

This will provide income for the states by means of taxes.

It will also mean that states don't need to spend so much money and resources putting people in jail (often private for-profit ones).

Also police officers can focus on actual crimes and and do a better job of responding since their resources won't be so strained.

Finally, a jail time record, for even something like having marijuana can doom an individual's future. It makes it much harder to get a job and stigma is stuck on that individual. With a large population of people not able to get a job partially due to the 'criminal' record they may be forced to live in poverty and turn to actual crime. This in turn will cost the states and government more money and only hurt society.

Prohibition didn't work for alcohol but the government seems to be ignoring history and trying to prohibit marijuana and in this instance, it is doing a great job of just messing everything up and making people's lives worse, except for the ceos of private prisons.

Norse gods rule. First off having gods and goddesses is much cooler than just one god or savior.

And then they fight far more exotic and dangerous monsters. Who can say one of their gods defeated a serpent that coiled itself around the world. Or Another of their gods killed a wolf that swallowed the moon? Or what about a god who plucked out one of his own eyes to gain knowledge? Only the Norse people I believe.

But the most awesome thing about the Norse gods, I think, is that they all knew their moment of death and they bravely prepared for that final confrontation. Oh, and they did all of this to save humanity. :)

I don't think so. I understand evil as acting to intentionally harm another being where the main purpose is causing harm. Animals can be dangerous such as when they are hunting, sick, or protecting their offspring, but I don't think they ever intend harm so I don't think of them as evil.

The arguments while appearing similar are not.

I slavery there is a minium of 2 roles, the slave and the master. The master projects his authority over the slave.

However in the case of the pro-life view there are a minimum of three roles involved, the woman, the unborn child, and the pro-life church. Your argument tries to link the unborn child to the slave and the mother to the master, but you fail to take into account the relationship of the pro-life church. The role of the the pro-life church like the slave master over the mother.

This of course all relies on the the belief of when fetus is considered a person. If you look at the pro-choice view, there is a longer period of time before the fetus is considered a person. In this view, the slave analogy, the only relationship left is the mother as the slave to the will of the pro-life church master.

The problem that many pro-choice people have with people trying to take away abortion rights is that the pro-life church is using the Government to impose the church's will on a selection of other people that there is absolutely no doubt to them being actual people. The government should not enforce religious ideology on those who do not agree with that Ideology but the pro-life stance demands just that. Many good Christians detest and are outraged with the state mandated religious laws forcing Muslim women in Iran and Afghanistan to wear hijabs or burqas. Why should the Christian church be able to force it's views on the women of the United States?

Abortions should be a last resort, and it is something only a woman with the accurate and honest advice of a doctor can decide on. No church, no government, no body else has the right to insert themselves into this situation. And even if we agree that the fetus is a person much earlier, that still does not mean the church or a politician can speak for that unborn child so they still have no right to interfere.

Obama can't work with those who won't work with him. Obama has tried to work with the republicans, he has made offers that contain proposals the republicans have expressed interest in such as the Chained CPI.

Also during the Fiscal cliff fiasco Obama originally said he wanted to raise the income taxes on those making $250000 or more a year. That is what he ran on in his campaign. The then offered to make the threshold $450000 or more because the republicans wanted it higher. Eventually Biden and McConnell made a deal but it was after the president attempted to work with the republicans and his offer of $450000 for the threshold was used.

Obama has tried, and compromised quite a bit with the republicans but you can't shake hands with somebody if they don't extend theirs you know.

I support President Obama because he has tried to help the country and succeeded in several places. He helped to prevent the economy from crashing and he has managed to prevent us from going in to more pointless wars where our service men and women needlessly die. He has stood up for marriage equality and gender pay equality. The more equal a society the better every individual does as well. For instance, gender pay equality would mean that women would have larger paychecks equal to their effort which they could then go out and spend at a local store or restaurant and help the economy. Is he a perfect president, of course not, and there are several things I disprove of his handling, especially when it comes to the banks and healthcare but overall I think he has done a good job in a tough global and political environment.

Too often it seems that people cling to one thing they don't like about a person and then decide to hate that person because of it. At one point, I couldn't say anything but how much I hated Nixon but I've found that he's done things I agree with such as founding the EPA, and opening relations with China, and ending the war in Vietnam. I still would never vote for him, but I wouldn't blindly accuse him with false information or make damning accusations without first finding proof about them.

Unfortunately, president Obama hasn't seen the respect a current or former president deserves. Disagree or agree with the president, but at least respect the office.

Terrorism is a tricky subject because any reaction to it acknowledges it exists and the effect it is having.

I think how you react, however, is what further promotes it or not. Negotiating or just talking to them, I don't think emboldens them or tells them they won. Talk is cheap and easy, making a war on them is expensive and hard. If a terrorist act can get a nation to make war on a group of people or another nation, then that reaction affirmed that terrorism worked in that case with that group of people.

Also, terrorism often breads terrorism in the various forms of retaliation. Take for instance the shock and awe strategy. Are not the overwhelming show of air power and massive explosions all methods to subdue and demoralize the enemy? To terrorize them against a force they can't possibly beat and thus they must succumb and give in. Sure its on a larger scale but the primary means of using fear as a weapon is similar.

Waiting/enduring the terrorists out seems like a emotional tactic of stubbornness which will only encourage the terrorists to devise greater, in magnitude, acts of terrorism in an attempt to create a volatile reaction.

There are terrorists who will never negotiate with us but reacting first with violence carries the potential to further their cause. The current US wars both are demonstrating that terrorism works against the US and gives the terrorists more potential recruits who are marginalized by the reckless attacks by the US.

While the terrorist cells are a problem we need to look deeper. Why do these cells exists? What possible policies(US or other) is giving people a motivation for violence and suicide? The idea that we can eradicate terrorism is foolish, but we can certainly reduce it as well as reduce the sympathy some terrorists receive.

While the distinction between states laws verses federal laws, and who enacts them is important it shouldn't factor heavily into this debate.

The states nor the federal government should deny same-sex marriage, that comes with the same government rights of conventional marriage, based on a religious interpretation of marriage.

The government, by not protecting and giving the equal rights to same-sex couples, is in effect marginalizing a group of people as lesser citizens with unequal rights. This government is also accepting the full influence of religion in its proceedings and thus acting on the behalf of one religion and thus group of citizens to deny equality to another group of citizens.

If the government keeps the term marriage, all it needs to do is allow any two people to receive the same rights and recognition. It doesn't not need to require that a marriage ceremony takes place in a religious venue or fashion.

The term marriage is not monopolized or owned by any religious organization, and thus religious organizations shouldn't have any influence in how the government or people use the term marriage.

In issues of equality among citizens, the federal government should take precedence over state so that it can apply a law to effect all citizens equally. To force the states to do this would be to allow the possibility that certain groups of citizens have more rights to equality than other groups of citizens.

Most predators have several features that complement each other, to create a better hunter yet humans only have the mind. I guess what i was trying to imply was that from the beginning the human ancestors were never serious predators. If we never evolved to have a capable mind, we would have continued to eat similar diets to chimpanzees and other primates. I don't know of any species which has evolved to change from, say a chimpanzee's diet to a bear's diet. So i don't think we were "meant" to eat the kind of meat that we eat now.

These last few arguments have strayed from the topic, and I doubt that either of us will come to abandon our positions within them. I think we can, however, agree that meat isn't necessary for humans. We might like it, but we don't need it to survive.

First let me say i appreciate you not downvoting my arguments just because you don't agree with me, its a step up from at least half the people on this site.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Humans are capable of eating both meat and vegetables but that doesn't mean we need to eat both. Humans can survive fine with a vegetarian diet. A meat diet can directly and indirectly cause harm to humans, animals, and the planet.

- meat can be unhealthy and lead to weight issues as well as illnesses

- slaughterhouses can cause pain to animals as well as injury to workers

- meat production contributes negatively to the environment from global warming to deforestation for corps.

Humans might be the best predators but that doesn't mean we need to eat meat. Also, if we couldn't cook our meat would we even eat it? You say we are the most natural predators but cooking our meat to eat doesn't seem so natural. Also, often, if we don't cook our meat we can get food poisoning that most predators never have to worry about, why is that? If you look at the overall autonomy of the human being you can realize that without our ability to think we would be pretty lousy predators.

- our teeth are inferior to other predators

- we don't have claws talons etc...

- we are slow runners

- our sense of sight, hearing, and smell are inferior to most predators.

Humans might enjoy eating processed and cooked meat but few if any are willing or able to chase down a deer, tear it apart with our fingernails and teeth to eat it raw like other natural predators.

I was responding to "Besides, why is it ok for a wolf to hunt a deer and wrong for us?".

For the part about hunting to make cities safer. Do the hunters think "I'm gonna hunt some deer, not because i enjoy it or because i might be payed but because i care for society and want to help avoiding future car accidents"?

Also since humans don't need to eat meat they don't need to hunt and thus all forms of hunting are unnecessary. Population control can be handled by natural predators which hunt for survival such as wolves.

Hunting for survival is one thing, hunting for sport is another. I'm against hunting for sport.

If you wanted to do something that would help promote vegetarianism you could suggest a bill that alters the current Farm Bill in the USA. This bill heavily subsidizes corn and other products commonly fed to livestock. livestock is cheaper to produce partly because the livestock can be fed so cheaply as well as from other government subsidies. If The Farm bill instead subsidized healthier foods, then fruits and vegetables could become cheaper. Meat, without government subsidies, would become more expensive and potentially less popular. This could help encourage vegetarianism and help to reduce the environmental damage caused by meat and corn production.

I'm talking about both Afghanistan and Iraq. Do you believe that Iraq was a good war to fight in for the reasons Bush gave in the beginning?

Most of the Arab world ignored the US, they had more pressing matters. They probably didn't like the US but it was dislike with inaction. The politically charged did hate the US, but that was a small population before both wars.

The US has constantly been cold if not hostile to Russia throughout the last few decades. The US has continually portrayed the image that it is ok for the US to interfere anywhere throughout the world with no restrictions or accountability. Yet, once Russia decides they want to pay more attention to the countries (which are attempting to join the western military block known as NATO) that are bordering them, Russia is being pushy and imperialistic. The US is hostile to anyone who doesn't obediently follow the US intended plans.

Obama, Has done more to help make government policies transparent whereas Bush tried to keep policies hidden by using various laws and executive privileges.

Communication and intelligence may be subjective but many people believe that Obama is better in both categories.

Now you still might argue that it was the circumstances that showed themselves but it is how the country reacts to these circumstances that makes a difference. Obama, as president, represents the country and the results are Obama's reactions to the circumstances. If McCain were elected he might have faced the same circumstances but reacted differently and that doesn't necessarily mean for the better.

First of all, I was pointing out that there are already institutions in place that resemble your definition of socialism, I was not saying I agree with them (the auto insurance and the health insurance mandates). The mandates means that the health insurance companies will be guaranteed customers. That doesn't seem very socialistic to me, the promise that a corporation will make a lot of money at the expense of the common people and workers. It's a ceo's and stockholder's dream come true.

Yes the republic was set up to not infringe on a persons rights, so why is there such a large population of Americans, a majority being conservative, who fight against same-sex marriage, marijuana, and abortion? Opposing these are all infringements on a person's rights yet many believe the government should infringe on those rights. Are all those people, who happen to be mainly conservatives, communists? Generally, not at all.

If you remember Bush signed the $700 billion to bail out the banks and not obama. Also the bailout benefited the owners and corporations and not the common people or workers as a socialist action would. Sure the constitution doesn't say we need to bail out corporations or such but it also doesn't say we need to invade countries for imperialistic aims, spread capitalism around the world, or deny people certain rights because they conflict with the ruling religion. What i'm getting at is that, apparently in America the constitution, sadly, is merely a guideline of how to act or at least that is what most conservatives act like it is.

When you mention people being forced to resign and or take pay cuts, are you talking about the ceos and other positions of power or the workers? Ceos and related personnel might have been forced out by bailout conditions but workers were forced to resign or take lower payouts because the corporation decided to do that and not the government. Don't get me wrong, i think the bailouts were a terrible idea, and executed even worse but that is because the bailouts were constructed to help keep the corporations and the people running them able to continue their practices that brought about this mess in the first place.

Bush forced all this to happen, does that make him a socialist in your view? Obama inherited the mess and expectations of the country. The majority of his solutions and the end goals have been capitalistic in nature so really are saying he is a socialist because you dislike him and know that many Americans will accept that and blindly go along with that idea.

You could be helpful and actually offer a rebuttal instead of just down voting my argument because you don't agree with it.

I'm down voting your argument, if you want to call it such, because there isn't any. Also i have noticed that you down vote many arguments that are pro-animal rights or pro-vegetarian without any decent rebuttal, with the only apparent reason being that you don't agree with the opinion.

Seriously? Your argument basically said that it is the deers fault that it gets hit by a vehicle. Hunters aren't a reliable or major way to prevent accidents involving deer. The best form is to reintroduce natural predators (wolves, pumas) like MKIced said. Natural predators maintain an equalization that allows the ecosystem to function efficiently.

Obama isn't the best president, but he is certainly better than Bush.

Bush got the us into two wars.

Bush turned much of the Arab world against the US. Originally it was only the extreme forces within those regions that hated the us.

Bush oversaw the rise in corporate and political corruption

Bush oversaw the fall of the economy.

Bush increased hostility with Russia

Obama has inherited much of these problems.

This isn't to say that Obama doesn't have any fault. I do believe he could have done different policy choices but we still need to remember the mess he entered into. So far obama has managed to created better relations with russia and the arab world. Obama has also managed to halt the fast deterioration of the economy In addition Obama is smarter, better able to communicate, and more transparent tot he public.

I don't know when it was a crime to read communist literature but if he did read it at least he was able to see a different view of the world. I'm assuming that since you make a big deal about someone reading a book about communism or with such tendencies that you have never read such a book. If that is so how can you actually understand communism if you've never tried to learn from the root of the idea and Form you Own opinion.

why do so many conservatives etc... believe that who one associates with even if it was when they were young or for a short time, defines that person forever? I believe current actions by a person are a better way to define a person than the past associations.

It appears like several people on this site believe that, if a person promotes or believes in a particular course of action then that alone can make a person anything that is associated with that action. You mention that because Obama is suggesting mandated healthcare he is socialist. You assume that government mandates are socialistic and thus obama is a socialist. It also happens to be the case that mandates exist in countries ruled by fascists or democratically elected presidents. In the US we have laws (mandates) that you can't rob or kill someone. Does this make the US socialist what about the person who came up with this law? No. Also most US states mandate that you have car insurance. Does this make the US or advocates of such a mandate socialist? No. Fascists are often associated with state executions so would that make proponents of the death penalty in america fascists? No.

If you examine the healthcare plan that obama offers you will see that as a whole it is capitalistic or at least not socialistic. I already mentioned in another post but for your convenience I will point out more about the capitalistic nature of the plan.

1) The public option is a vast pool of resources that is bought in bulk from other health providers. In actuality the plan is merely a government insurance company that promises to be cheaper yet remain competitive with other companies.

a) The government won't fix prices that operations or prescriptions must adhere to. The prices will drop because the government can buy in bulk and thus create savings.

2) The public option is an OPTION you don't have to choose it. You have the OPTION of keeping your own insurance company that you purchased or get from your employer.

a) being able to choose your provider means that the market is still the ultimate manipulator of prices. If the government provides cheaper and better healthcare, using market strategies then it will because of the market that you decide to purchase that healthcare.

3) This plan retains the health insurance companies and allows them to choose their own prices and methods. It does not close them down or set artificial price ceilings or floors.

a) it merely requires that the insurance companies don't drop already paying customers if they have a precondition.

b) it also requires that the insurance companies don't discriminately price their services or products based on someone's' health.

If you are judging obama and his actions, and this bill is a reflection of his actions, on one association between the actions and the methodology then shouldn't you be saying he is a capitalist? There are more capitalistic features in the bill than socialistic and the capitalistic ones are also of a greater magnitude.

I feel like i'm gonna repeat my self again but obviously you haven't payed attention so far. I'm gonna break it down for you. First some definitions from http://www.merriam-webster.com which i assume is credible in your opinion.

Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Now that you know where i'm coming from you should be able to realise that obama is in fact a capitalist. That is if you actually listened to him and what he did and didn't get your marching orders from the likes of rush limbaugh or glenn beck.

1) The automakers bailout was a capitalistic move because he gave huge sums of money to the corporations so that they could keep going without challenging the business structure at all.

a socialist as you should know would have abolished the position of ceo and either given COMPLETE control over to the workers of each plant or fully nationalized the company so that the government owned it. giving money without gaining official control or ownership doesn't constitute a socialist action.

2) His remedy for the healthcare system in the US is also capitalistic because he seeks to maintain private health companies with them giving few concessions.

A socialist would have made a plan to abolish all private health insurance companies and create a sole organization to run healthcare. merely adding an additional insurrance company(which happens to be owned by the government) does not make this plan a socialistic move.

i could go on but i'l be lucky if you really read all of what i just wrote. If you still believe he is socialist(which sadly you probably will) please respond with a list of defineite policies obama has taken that make him so.

Also I down voted your argument not because i disagree with you but because your argument contained no substance or support. You make big claims and believe that we should just accept them at face value.

Obama is not a socialist or socialistic.

He has not advocated for state or worker control of private enterprise. He has merely given some corporations a lot of money. He doesn't control or own them.

Expressing a desire to help those in need does not make you a socialist. It shows that you are human.

Not being overly religious doesn't make you socialist.

Opposing religion in politics doesn't make you socialist. It also doesn't mean you hate religion. It just means that you think they shouldn't influence each other.

Obama certainly isn't as openly religious as Bush but he isn't going to persecute religion like how Bush and his followers persecute non-believers. More people are free to live their lives without government influence because Obama believes in the separation of church and state.

Healthcare reform is important for several reasons.

1) Economical.

- Currently it is very inefficient with a lot of cooperate bureaucracy and paper work that drives up costs.

- A sick workforce is harmful to the national economy

- providing Healthcare to employees is a strain on business budgets

2) Ineffective

- The current system's first goal is to make a profit by using healthcare as a product. Currently it is more profitable to deny claims than to provide healthcare.

- people often receive more than they need in terms of tests and drugs and thus possibly taking resources away from those who could need them.

3) Social

- The current system favors those who are least in need, while punishing those who most need it.

- health care benefits can prevent dissatisfied workers from leaving their job for one that they will like more but doesn't provide health care.

I believe that government run healthcare will work better than cooperate healthcare. Maybe in America the government can't do any thing socially good but other western nations' governments can.

We have let corporate healthcare show us how expensive, ineffective and unjust it can be. Our neighbors above us and across the ocean have shown how government run healthcare can be cheaper, efficient, and more just.

I was being sarcastic in response to dallowar's argument: "In a great majority of cases you can catch a fish and release it without serious or long lasting harm".

I took that as meaning that it is ok to do harm to something as long as it's not fatal or long lasting. So i applied that logic to humans to point out how stupid i think it is.

I probably should have commented under that post instead. However, i feel that a lot of people hold that belief and thus i wanted to comment on people in general instead of focus on dallowar.

Yes, killing animals for fun is cruel. It also worries me when I am around people who take so much pleasure in killing things. First its starts at animals, usually it will stay there, but then again maybe it will go to humans. What about if someone, who was a little twisted, went hunting and they accidentally or purposely killed your pet such as your dog or horse? I doubt you would respond, "Hey at least you had fun."

A person who takes pleasure in such dominating power because they are able, as in killing a "lesser" creature, is not someone I would respect.

I'm not sure about fishing for sport. It looks like it could be painful to the fish. I mean if someone stuck a hook in your cheek it would be painful, but its ok because it would heal. If all the other sports that kill or seriously harm animals were banned except sport fishing i would be happy enough.

Welfare, in the USA, needs to be drastically altered but I would never suggest that it be abolished. Currently it is broken and corrupt just like many American public social institutions but the solution isn't to just throw it away.

People who have not needed to live on any form of welfare are lucky and it is possible that those people could feel that they are unfairly paying for a service they don't need or utilize. It is easy to think that something is useless or a waste of resources if you don't need it but once you need it you will be wondering why it isn't more accessible or supported.

There are people who force themselves, out of terrible decisions they made, to be in a situation requiring welfare and it is frustrating having to support them but the majority of those who need welfare were forced to that point because of events out of their control. Little exists to help these people rise up. If you are in need of welfare you often are poor, in moderate or poor health and possibly in a sub par hygienic situation. These factors can make it difficult to get jobs or advance in jobs. People look down on you and politicians never really help because these people are seen as a drain on resources by those well off.

Welfare is to help those at the bottom rise up and currently it is failing those most in need. It needs to be made more efficient and less corrupt. It shouldn't focus on getting people off of welfare as soon as possible but on helping people increase their living standards to a sustainable and acceptable point. Only the most demoralized want to live on welfare for ever and usually they don't want to but the feel they are stuck. People have a natural desire to do something and to contribute to something; proper welfare gets them going and removes some obstacles that are oppressive and intimidating.

Homework shouldn't be banned. Teachers should take more time to think about what homework they assign and if they should assign homework that day. It shouldn't be busy work but a reinforcement of what was done in class. If the teacher needs to assign a lot of homework or homework every school day then the teacher is the problem and the students are suffering because the teacher and school are not working effectively.

Do we need meat to survive? No.

Do we need meat to be satisfied? That depends.

I'm a vegetarian and I'm perfectly fine with not eating meat. It makes it difficult to go out to eat or overseas travel but i'm not worse off and I think it's a better lifestyle.

What we do need is protein but that and other elements can be gained from other non-meat foods and thus meat is not necessary for humans.

Apathy.

Most if not all the major issues that plague society, such as global warming, deforestation of rain forests, corrupted health care, poverty, imperial wars, and corrupt economic systems are solvable with today's technology, knowledge, and industry. The problem is that many of the people who are able to solve these issues or contribute to solving them don't care.

An issue can have a million solutions but if no one cares about it then that issue will never be solved and that is the current state of most problems.

If people could lose their apathy towards everything that isn't themselves or doesn't directly affect them in the short-term then I think we could actually do something good for society and thus each of us.

I don't really think piracy is the reason that rates for products are so high. Also if pirating of software were to disappear i don't think the price of software would decrease. I prefer paid applications because i think the workers who wrote the code and designed it should get paid. However i prefer open source applications more because they tend to work just as well or better, more community oriented which is a social value i appreciate, and they are free.

It really depends on the activity. I like to win but there are times where I prefer a loss or am not disappointed with a loss. This is mainly in regards to sports such as real football (soccer). There have been some games that my team won but it was mainly luck on our part. I played terribly, the team played terribly and the opposing team played well, however; somehow we managed to win when they deserved to. Maybe one of my teammates committed a nasty foul and prevented the other team from scoring. Maybe due to a handball we managed to put a ball in the net. By the rules we won but those aren't games to be proud of and if I'm not proud of how I or the team did then I consider that game a loss. That goes the other way to. I've played several games where we lost but i did really well and some of those games I've liked and bean more proud of then games my team has won.

Of the songs and artists listed the ones from 1965-1969 are the ones I listen to the most. Personally i think most music before the 90s is good. As Joe said, maybe jokingly, music after 89 is disappointing to say the least.

Evolution doesn't make a direct attack on Religion, it was in no way intended to. But those devout anti-evolution Christians seem to believe it has an immense impact on religion; they view it as a threat.

Bill Maher's film does directly attack religion so logically that should be what the Christians should be against, sadly, those Christians aren't fond of logic.

The confrontation that the creationist Christians created would see that the main enemy is evolution. Bill Marer is a blimp on their radar. He is pretty left and obviously anti-religious. He can be passed off as a leftist wacko, and his audience is too small to be powerful and too liberal to be swayed. However, there are many who are on the fence about evolution, it has a far greater support base, and it has facts and logic to back it up.

In this confrontation created by those who don't believe in evolution against those who do, religion is in trouble. It can't fight on the same grounds or with the same weapons as those who believe evolution. They started an unwinnable war, at least by conventional means, and if they were to back down then they would lose. They set up the battle so that which ever side loses discredits what they were fighting for, Evolution vs the Christians' God. However, it isn't that black and white. If those supporting evolution were to ignore the creationists or refuse to fight then little harm would befall them aside from seeing more smirting creationists. If the creationists were defeated then it would be devastating to them partly because it is their war.

Thus evolution logically isn't a danger as it was created but it has been assigned an enemy status by anti-evolutionists and thus in their world it has a greater impact to religion.

It truly is a shame that christens are nearly always grouped together with those who also believe in creationism because as you say not ever christian is a creationist. Due to my laziness I didn't specify that i don't mean every christian is against evolution or science.

Nonetheless, those who manage to get themselves heard and get things done, in regards to evolution bashing, are for the most part creationists. They represent themselves as Christians and thus the stigma of a creationist is received, unintentionally for the most part, by the christian community.

The Christan community as a majority however, doesn't attempt to separate themselves from these extremists. So it appears that even if you don't believe in creationism that you doubt evolution and thus you doubt much of science.

Christians like you who believe in evolution should do more to separate yourselves from those who fight evolution on faulty platforms because the majority of Christians, I believe, do accept evolution yet they are not represented in politics or social life and thus the majority is marginalized in favor of the select minority.

The article has this phase in reference to the Charles Darwin film.

"US distributors have resolutely passed on a film"

"The film has no distributor in America" - Jeremy Thomas (producer)

Now maybe the producer's word has only a little strength behind it but it would appear that the article did say that the film will not have US distributors.

Of course they don't mention directly that the a reason or the sole reason the film has no producer is because it could be controversial but they don't say it was because it sucked either.

I haven't seen the film so I don't know of its quality but apparently a lot of distributors from other countries are willing to show it so it can't be terrible. And thus I don't think that its quality is the major reason this film isn't being shown in the US. Most of the films in the US are a waste of time and money anyway.

Even if the film is questionable quality wise it seems that its nature would be enough to put it on the Christan enemy list. I haven't seen a few of the movies you gave an example of but i think the reason that this film has been so attacked was because it supposedly talks about losing religion and it includes some talk of evolution.

The far Christians fight evolution and things related to it as if it were created solely to destroy god and their religion. Now Religulus wasn't the kindest to religion but I think those extreme Christians view the topic of evolution as a greater threat than Bill Mahar and his film.

Since you only said "Scarcity pricing is the only just and sustainable way to price things, including labor." I assumed, maybe wrongly, that statement implied that the salary difference between the two groups of workers was justifiable because of that economic viewpoint.

I understand there are a lot of teachers. The facts you pointed to back that up, but I think that those who can teach well, who are the best, should get paid more. That doesn't mean that every teacher should be paid more. I've known several teachers who shouldn't be teachers and maybe one of the problems lies with the retention rate of bad teachers.

Even though the supply and demand model suggests that teachers should have a lower wage to meet equilibrium, I personally feel that for the teaching profession as well as firefighters, police officers and such, their wage should be influenced on the social good they do for society regardless of the number of applicants there are to the fields. Just because there are a lot of applicants doesn't mean you need to hire them all. Pick the best teachers and pay them well for being the best teachers.

If what you say is true, why do bankers make so much and yet the US banking system is suffering from lack of sustainablity?

Also since many would stress that really good and effective teachers are scarce why shouldn't they be paid much more? Wouldn't a good teacher help create a more stable and just society economically and socially and thus schouldn't those teachers recieve a greater income?

You can have faith in the human species and still realize that there are members within this species that are stupid. If you look at all that humans have let continue such as global warming even though proof exists that it is happening and yet people still frantically deny that evidence as true you have stupid people who put their desired fantasy world before the true physical world they are a part of. The human race isn't stupid but that doesn't mean the majority of humans or a high percentage of the population isn't stupid. Answering "yes" might sound pessimistic and it would be nice to live in a world where people aren't stupid;however, we need to be realistic first.

Yes, teachers should be paid much higher salaries for what they do. Teachers probably shouldn't be paid so much that people join that career just for the money but the current wage for teachers is depressingly low.

A teacher is one of the most important professions, especially in a democracy like system, and a teacher shouldn't be required to work two jobs, or have their spouse work a job just so they can afford to live an adequate life.

Some humans are stupid; that is why The Darwin Awards exist.

I had a guarded optimism about obama but i still believe he is the better choice for president. McCain supported many not all of bushes polices, and the sad thing about it is that he changed his political views such as on torture after being presured by the gop and others to do so. He is the kind of person who when the pressure was on chose what, he thought or was told, the far-right wanted.

McCain's choice in running mate also put serious doubt into his reasoning and understanding of the situation and needs of the country.

Obama has run into many problems from democrats and republicans as well as a decreased drive to succeed in more liberal polices but he inherited many problems, some he hasn't alleviated but the ones stalling or preventing him from succeeding are left overs from the right wing political body and center-right democrats.

Raising the quality of debates is always a good idea but i don't think this method would work. Even if the price to read an argument by a professional was cheap i don't think people would really go through the effort paying for or be willing to spend money on reading a single argument or selection of arguments from a professional.

Also, being a professional doesn't mean by default that you can explain or argue your point so that others can understand it even if they lack much of your knowledge in the field.

In addition professionals can have different views on the same topic and that could make the arguments bias. For instance, there are professionals economists who believe in Keynes economic model and those who don't. what if only a professional that believed in Keyne's model of economics were to add an argument to the debate? having a supposedly superior knowledge of economics, along with a title as being an expert in that field, might make their argument seem stronger against an opponent's argument even if it doesn't fit logically or isn't backed up as well with sources as the non-expert's argument.

in a medium where you can get a lot of relevant information about nearly any topic for free, it seems as overkill or just unlikely that having an expert's opinion will be utilized since people are generally lazy and unwilling to pay for information (other than college) that they can get on-line.

in order to bring about peace their needs to be a threshold of development which can support it. the likely hood of ever reaching true peace among all individuals is highly unlikely but it is easier for peace to flourish if the people aren't in conflict with each other, or the forces of society such as personal finances.

Peace should be the ultimate goal and we should develop with that in mind. We can't however abandon any current peace now in favor of future development, if development will hinder or reduce the peace within a community then a different path of development must be sought.

Peace is a social and cultural entity and development should begin in sectors that enhance such areas.

Banning of unhealthy foods will do no good and be ineffective. Advertising needs to be truthful and maybe it should be required that advertisements of unhealthy foods have warnings. Similar to that of smoking and drinking. Because unhealthy food is not as severe as smoking and drinking then maybe advertisements that feature some warning about the ill effects of unhealthy food be given a small incentive of some sort instead of requiring a warning label.

Ideally people should know what is healthy and what isn't. And in the end banning advertisements of unhealthy food will have less an effect on curbing the increase of unhealthy people than properly educating people about the ill effects.

Even though commercial companies exist for profit they should take a socially responsible role and focus their advertisements on the healthier products they create or on research or production that leads to healthier food.

There are those who are paranoid about obama because they feel he will drastically alter the American economic and political landscape but i think there are those who voted for him that are paranoid that he won't change anything.

I'm paranoid about obama not because of the person but because it is appearing like he will be the downfall of the left in major politics or at least set them back. Even though he was not a very left candidate he was promoted as one. Currently, the democrats have the power that they could introduce liberal polices but obama is not taking the lead. even though his views are center or center left on most issues he is portrayed as being very left and thus a representative of the liberal ideology.

The problem is that the polices that he enacts are not appearing to be liberal in their end results, and yet it is likely that if he fails to bring about the liberal end result the liberal ideology will be blamed and not the real failure in communication and execution of the means to the liberal results.

It appears that obama does not know the power he and the democrats have, he is trying to please everyone, and is worried about not appearing too left. The democrats in politics fail at communication and because of this they aren't able to properly defend their views, explain their views, or explain the problems that are on going and possible solutions to them.

Even though Obama was not very left or at least as left as commonly portrayed and self-promoted he still has the ability to bring about liberal polices and if he fails to do so it will probably be a long while before anyone more left than him can do so in that office.

I completely agree. While i do think it is important to set a good example, that alone won't compel any nation to follow, as you already mentioned. I think we need to set a good example so we gain the high ground in our negotiations because if we don't set an example we can't honestly expect the other nations to reduce their carbon emissions if we don't ourselves.

A cap and trade system could work and it probably is one of the better ways to get corporations to actually do something to help combat global warming. The problem is that all the politicians are bought by at least one corporation and thus they weaken and warp any bill until it is useless for its intended and introduced purpose. Nonetheless, this doesn't mean that bills or actions to combat global warming are wasteful. It just takes longer.

Some people, not just on this site but everywhere, have mentioned that because we the US or other countries more inclined to fighting global warming can't actually force countries like china to reduce their carbon emissions it is a waste of our money and time to reduce our own since they will cut any gains we make.

While this may be true, it doesn't mean we can't continue to reduce our carbon emissions since at least there will be less. Leading by example is our only way to get other countries to adopt better techniques.

If the US or other western countries with the infrastructure and knowledge can actually take steps to seriously develop clean energy technology as well as more efficient processes we could develop the tools needed to solve this problem. These able countries will need to invest a large initial sum of money to get this working but overtime it will pay for it self as well as help the earth. Some countries such as china have said they will follow what the US does. If they are sincere i don't know but once the US and other countries create and adopt better technologies they will become more affordable and accessible to developing countries.

Of course if the US stays on its intended course policy wise our example will mean nothing since we haven't actually set a good example of how to fight combat warming. There are too many people who only think short term and are not willing to be pioneers in these better and cleaner technologies. Investing in clean technology, subsidizing clean energy, taxing poluting energy and industries and continuing even if it appears we are alone is one of the few ways to fix this. We can't ignore it and hope we could adapt to the changes in the climate. If we set a good example and are actually serious about this issue then other countries will eventually follow.