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.

The sword is only effective to get the point across if the potential victim fears its use. If you actually use the sword you don't get your point across to the victim but maybe the bystanders. If the potential victims are standing up for a cause and the fear of the sword is being used for suppression it may not be effective depending on how devoted they are. Gandhi's peace movement against the British imperialists is an example.

Internal issues are the greatest threat. One reason is that depending on the outcome of internal issues, external issues can change or at least the manner at which they are perceived and dealt with. For the United States only internal issues have ever stopped it from advancing socially and we are at the point that America needs to advance socially but the opposition and divide among internal forces prevents this from happening. Also internal issues generally influence a larger population within a country than external ones, except for a true invasion. The internal issues are under our control and thus all it takes is that all the opposing forces to learn to compromise and put the country before business or personal agendas.

That is a great quote by a great artist. If only more would listen.

No. The only people who have a legitimate say in the affairs of a country are the local citizens and the government officials who live in that country.

Foreign investors and MNCs obviously would not care what their influence had on the country or the local citizen population. They aren't expected to. The most direct relation the investors or mncs have with the country is business and they would see the opportunities to exploit the citizens or loop holes in laws with at least negative if not potentially very bad consequences to the local citizens.

a lot of the small island and shore countries in Asia have been harmed by foreign investors trying to open up new exotic resorts. The prime location for a resort is close to the water, yet that is also where a lot of the citizen population lives especially those involved with the local fishing industry. Investors have pressured the local governments, some of which their legitimacy among the local population is questioned, to block off or remove the shore villages so that resorts can be built instead. The shock doctrine by Naomi Klein, gives a more detailed explanation of this and other times where foreign investors and other people interested in the economics of another country have managed to do more harm than good.

I wouldn't phrase it that way because it is too general but i agree with the idea. I think the way animals are bred, raised, and killed is morally wrong. Anything that eats meat could be considered a murder and people can eat meat but that doesn't mean people need to eat meat.

The fact that humans don't need to eat meat yet advocate and support the mass production and killing of various animals is cruel and obsessive.

Real carnivores and omnivores can eat meat raw without getting sick. They also enjoy eating raw meat. They are not repulsed by the idea of eating a dead animal if they pass it.

The human anatomy is not specialized for eating meat it is just able to cope with it. That doesn't mean it is natural for a human to eat meat such as a hamburger or grilled chicken. http://www.earthsave.ca/articles/health/ comparative.html has further explanations about the human anatomy's lack of optimization for eating meat.

Humans are willing to eat meat because once it's cooked it tastes good. Also humans generally don't catch their own pray and gut it and prepare to eat. They don't see the slaughterhouses. Infact humans are so far removed from the meat making process that they can't truly know how much of what they are eating is any certain type of meat or additional organic materials. They don't see the mass blood, sickness, weakness, or pain that is associated with slaughterhouses.

Killing any living thing without need is wrong and to induce suffering while killing that being is even worse. So yes meat is murder, because humans can easily survive without meat and are actually healthier when they do.

I agree with all the above. Abortion is a personal issue and i'm certain women don't choose it lightly for a multitude of reasons. But it remains a personal issue, that only the woman and her doctor can truly understand. Since almost every circumstance is unique no specific rule can be fairly applied that would limit against abortion. The forces that are against abortion do not speak for all of society nor does all of society believe or follow the full teachings of those forces and thus society shouldn't be constrained by rules and regulations that only that select force supports. A woman should not be forced to risk a great deterioration of her health, living standard, or life because some group of people believe that abortions are morally wrong. If she is forced to be obligated by this select group then how is she a free person?

I think a terrorist is an entity that uses fear and violence to get what it wants generally for political reasons. Thus I feel that any person, no matter their nationality or any government no matter its form can participate in terrorism and thus be considered a terrorist entity.

When i hear terrorist on the news or radio i think that it is probably being applied with bias solely to Muslim extremists and it has become a word with a double definition.

The man who recently killed the late term abortion docter i would consider a terrorist because he is trying to intimidate other potential abortion doctors because of his beliefs. Also shock and awe strategies could loosely be considered terrorist acts because their main strength is to terrorize and intimidate the enemy.

Mainly when i hear terrorist i think it is an over used word, commonly spoken by devout republicans, to describe any action they disagree with that also contains some form of violence.

I don't like American football. Sometimes I'll watch it with friends but that is because it is the Superbowl or some other social event and rarely do i actually watch it at such events. I find American football to be a very abrupt and slow game. They are constantly stopping for everything. It is supposed to be a rough sport yet they call fouls all the time. Also the culture that goes with football is not my favorite and the devout American football fans and players can get on my nerves very quickly. In addition, at least for me, when i was learning to play soccer a lot of coaches stressed physical play and strength and that in my opinion has harmed America's soccer style. some of these coaches played football in their youth and others were fans of it.

In addition to what nichole said i think, that in online debating, you are able to present more detailed information. You can check the internet for facts and sources before you post. Also you have more time to organize your thoughts and prepare a better argument. While I don't think everyone will read your entire debate post just because you have it typed up you at least have documentation that everyone can see regarding what you said and thus you can create better counter arguments depending on how much their arguments attacked or ignored your post.

I think the truth hurts because one can't escape it. Also for the most part our conversations are gentle when it comes to saying what is on our mind towards someone we don't dislike. If someone doesn't sugar coat what they say, like American society has come to expect, people become shocked and angry because they weren't prepared for it. The truth is seen generally as raw and unfiltered, yet so much of our conversations is delicately patched together so as not to offend. The truth doesn't seem to take that into account, the value of speaking the truth is largely influenced at least by the recipient on if it could be considered rude or insensitive and not on the value of choosing to tell the truth opposed to telling a lie.

I would prefer having my eyesight. I can't imagine a world without colors or shapes. Colors can invoke emotions that sounds can't. I love being able to read and look at art and ponder what the artist was thinking. Also, american sign language is not difficult to learn and it can be fun to converse in such a way. I would certainly miss my music and the ability to hear people talk but, I could partially make up for it by reading. I love to think and being able to see allows me to observe or read more topics to think about.

I think they should. While, this may not be the most politically sound time to release them, if they don't it might never happen. Or it might happen two decades from now, when honestly it won't matter.

While, any person seeking updated information about the issue knows about the torture not everyone understands the true implications of it.

The torture is a public policy that the government sanctions, not always explicitly, and thus anything relating to it should be public.

I like nearly everyone doesn't want the troops to be harmed but i personally don't see how releasing such photos could endanger them anymore than the danger they currently face in their line of work and location.

The government's polices of hiding pictures of the returning dead US soldiers and depictions of US led torture is a dangerous practice that undermines the trust given to the nation by its citizens to protect them. Such a decision is an active move to prevent public opinion from forming against the government's actions. Everything the government does must be justified, because their are always other viable solutions, yet the government doesn't want to find justification for its actions. This could suggest that, their is none or little. If this is the case the government is knowingly participating in immoral and possibly criminal activities. The truth of such actions must be made public so that such actions can be corrected that will properly align the government with its mission of protecting the citizen body, nation, and its laws.

Releasing the photos now as well as the investigation can prevent such events from taking place in the near future. If the release of the photos is after a large delay, then there is a chance that further negative and similar events will take place within that time frame.

First, i agree that not all Christians are represented by the popular and recognized images of current American Christianity. those that hold a modest view of Christianity along with realism are undeserved of such hate.

Obama revived the public funding for stem cell research but that doesn't mean the Christians didn't have an affect on it. By citing their religion they were able to delay it and thus they imposed their viewpoints on american society even though not all of american society agreed with them.

Of course, most people with common sense or who are not clouded by religion would understand the fallacy of the pope's statement but that doesn't mean he didn't try to influence them. there are those who will believe him because of his position within Christianity.

The majority of Americans know that the bible shouldn't supersede the will of the people but that doesn't mean that there are those that do believe it should.

If the bible can influence the law so that a law is created that supports or carries out a "law" in the bible which some of the population doesn't believe in then in a sense the bible has superseded the will of the people.

I would not say this "hate" is reserved solely for christens but in the United States Christianity is the most widely represented religion and thus Americans see the effects of Christianity more than of other religions.

That being said Christianity has a strong influence on american law and many don't want to be liable under laws which were created because of a populations' religious views which may not be unanimous among the whole citizen body. Obvious examples include the resistance/denial of gay rights, abortion rights, and stem cell research.

Gay rights are resisted by several religions such as Christianity and Islam but Christianity is more prevalent in society so it has a stronger voice and becomes the image of anti-gay rights.

abortion rights are also resisted by religions but Christianity again is more vocal about it and more strict about it.

The polices regarding stem cell research have for the majority of cases only been opposed by Christians and yet their religion for a long time has prevented the advancement of important techniques.

The hate is directed towards the Christians because they do not seek to change their attitudes towards certain issues that affect Christians and non-Christians alike. Also Christians often make the case that evolution can't be real because it disproves god. The fact is that evolution was never meant to disprove a theist's god.

I think if another religion was more prominent in America that hate would be directed towards them if they acted in a similar way.

Of course this distribution of hate is unequal in that the hate is in response to select high profile or evangelical Christians and not in response to moderate Christians yet the moderate Christians receive the majority of the fallout simply because they are a majority among their religion.

Altruism is complex and depending on one's definition possibly rare but in a sense altruistic behavior is merely a mechanism to spread genes in a species.

Animals don't know they are reproducing to increase or enhance their gene pool. It is instinct. If the animal instinctively preforms an action which hinders its chance of reproducing but allows at least two siblings to live and mate then its action contributes to the gene pool.

Another example: White-fronted Bee-eaters, when they are young will often stay at the nest to help raise the young. They delay their reproduction or don't reproduce at all, and many will die before they can reproduce but they help get food for the newly hatched to survive. This is an instinctive behavior(that the white-fronted bee-eater does not understand the reasoning for) that helps increase the survival rate of the vary young and increase the potential of mating and thus spreading of the species' genes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White-fronted_Bee-eater

I did not mean to make is sound like in nature animals choose to preform altruistic behaviors. I think largely they are unaware of the reasoning and it is the genes that "want" to propagate that influence this behavior.

This, however, I don't think is the same for humans. I think people can consciously preform actions which would harm them for the survival of others.

You mention that the definition of altruism is problematic and i agree. Altruistic behavior by humans isn't the same as altruistic behavior by non-humans.

I agree that it is important to know a candidate's beliefs about certain issues but i don't think it is important that a candidate be religious. It is not because you are religious that you gain or develop morals.

The issue is that people often stop inquiring once they know what religion someone is. If a candidate is a conservative christian many assume they will be against abortion and other social issues such as gay marriage. Also if someone is agnostic or atheist many assume they don't have a strong moral backing but they often fail to actually find out the truth.

All world views including religion influence what someone does, and it doesn't matter as much what these views are but if they are able to separate them from politics when such views could hinder or reduce the liberties of other people. That is what candidates should be asked and tested on, the ability to put the public before themselves.

No, a candidate can certainly have a religion but they can't let that religion dictate how they will operate in office. Not everyone follows the same religion or a religion so policies can't be made which are specially aligned with one religion.

Being religious, or saying you are, doesn't mean you are trustworthy, dedicated to your job, competent, or have the communities' best interest in mind. Conversely if you agnostic or atheist doesn't mean you can't properly do your job.

Policies and the ability to understand factual cause and effect, scientific evidence, and make rational and thoughtful decisions are far more important in selecting a candidate.

Altruistic behavior, as I understand it, is doing an action that betters the community or species on a whole without regard for one self. For instance with certain animals like meerkats, they have a sentry who's responsibility is to warn the colony of predators. The act of barking out the alarm helps the community escape but draws attention of the predator to that sentry meerkat and potentialy dooms that meerkat.

Generally i would say that people aren't altruistic because almost every action by humans is for some internal goal but their is at least one notable exception and i'm sure there are more.

Take the case of a soldier jumping on a grenade to save his fellow soldiers. I honestly don't think that soldier is looking for recognition or a reward for what they did. In this case they are actually putting their life at risk for the community.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/01/AR2007010100759.html

For the most part i think it is Israel's fault. Now i don't support the rocket fire by hamas and i think that is wrong, but the degree of retaliation by Israel is so out of proportion that i think it is criminal and revenge instead of defense. Israel has done a lot to make of life of those in gaza terrible and has gone to extensive measures to prevent supplies of any form to come into the area. They say it is because they want to stop weapons getting to hamas and certainly weapons are getting to hamas that way but food and other supplies that are not for militeristic means also can only get in that way.

Israel has made gaza a desolate place and yet Israel continues to blame the local population for the situation there. If israel really were interested in peace and defense they would work to help their neighbor instead of put them under siege.

Wouldn't lifting the trade embargo actually encourage a more capitalistic economy?

If America could demonstrate the pros of our economy to the native population wouldn't that help the Cuban people more than leaving the embargo there?

Like you said, Castro at least has done pretty well with communism for himself and thus this trade embargo, if communism doesn't work for the people, only seems to punish the Cuban citizens and not those keeping Cuba communist.

I understand your hesitation to make trade with Cuba because where the money ultimately ends up but what i want to know is what good has the trade embargo done to make Cuba democratic or less communistic?

The trade embargo has done little to bring about "democracy" or a noticeable change in government economic policy. This embargo has only harmed the Cuban people and family relationships between Cuban Americans and their family members still in Cuba.

Also I don’t think the reason for the trade embargo was ever to bring a better life for the Cubans, I think it was solely an attempt to combat communism because it isn’t capitalism. If communism is a failed system then why does America need to make it so difficult for it to exist, wouldn’t it naturally die out?

Maybe lifting the embargo will bring democracy to Cuba maybe it won’t but keeping it there hasn’t so far and it doesn’t look like it will unless the Cuban leaders are assassinated or a US supported/deployed dictator takes control.

Communism may not work, but it has in some form managed to prevent the nation from completely collapsing. Shouldn’t the goal of our interaction with this nation be to help it and not to dictate its economic system? If we allowed them the chance to try out communism without so much hardship placed on them then maybe they could make it work. If they couldn’t then sooner or later a different system would be demanded by the local population and they would naturally evolve to what they think is better.

The embargo is a failed relic of anti-communist rhetoric that rarely had a noble intention in the first place, keeping it around merely shows that America cares more for capitalistic imperialism than allowing people to live their own lives how they want.

Sometimes, it would be less frustrating to be blissfully ignorant but i couldn't live in such a state. Being philosophically concerned allows me to make better judgments about events past and present. To be blissfully ignorant one could never knowingly contribute any meaningful thing in conversation and that would be very boring.

Knowledge is the only thing that we have that can't be robbed from us by anyone and that is vary important to me. Also knowledge protects freedom, where as if we were blissfully ignorant we wouldn't know if we were free or not and just be slaves to an illusion.

All who take part in american society are slaves to various systems in it. Our belief that we are truly free prevents us from noticing when actions are taken that actually reduce our freedom. Our lives have become enslaved in the work ethic that we live to work. We go to school and college to get a job. We might have a choice of what we want to do but only if it can make enough money that we can live a free life. Freedom, as i see it, is being able to take part in any action that doesn't harm another individual. If we can't afford health care because our insurance company won't pay for it and we can't afford it we aren't free to get that health care. Yet we still say we are free because legally we are allowed to get that health care. But freedom is not restrained only be legal means and as long as we are slaves to our jobs we will never be truly free.

Going back to job choice; if we accept that freedom also means having the financial means to get what we need, not necessarily what we want, then we are only free in our job selection if it provides enough income so that we can get what we need. If i want to be a writer but i can't make a sustained living off of it and must instead work at a print shop or something, i was not free in action to choose my job. I was free in ability but if ability can never be transformed into action then that freedom is only an illusion which I'm a slave to.

I can understand how people can get offense by seeing the us flag being burned but there are also people who get offended by seeing the confederate flag displayed in certain parts of America.

These are symbols and i belief they are protected by the freedom of speech. Burning the flag is a vary visible declaration that one is angry with the direction the country is going, it doesn't mean they hate the country it self.

For instance. The bush occupation lead America into an immoral war. Most of the world saw it as America going to war and not the bush government going to war. The flag represented America and that is what many anti-us people saw and why they are anti-us. the burning of the flag represents that there are those of us who do not follow the us government as it abuses are national symbol. Most people arn't anti-american but anti-american imperialism.

While i agree that this is possible and even justifiable i think only if certain conditions are met. Mainly, the dictator must pose an immediate, not perceived, threat to our nation. We can't go assassinating dictatorships just because we don't like their government or economic system if they aren't harming us.

If they were at war with us, i think it is totally justified to assassinate them but that is probably the only case because having other allowances just opens up chances for abuse by those with ideological views of politics or economics that they feel must be spread to everyone else, namely for their own benefit.

Honestly i don't think we have the choice to stop developing new technology. what i think we do have a choice in is what new technology we develop. new technology will always be developed but we can put our resources into developing technology that has a meaningful contribution to society and not just commercial militaristic interests.

Those people might see the troops as a tool for the war machine and thus they are an easy target for anti-war opposition. I am disappointed that less troops speak out against war but i don't necessarily believe it is the troop's fault and even then i still support them because they are human beings.

I do believe that the military indoctrinates its soldiers, in order to make them more "efficient", and also the rigid command structure in the military prevents and punishes opposition to the war even if such opposition is in fact more patriotic or just.

There are some soldiers who do immoral things and they deserve no support if they willingly slay citizens for revenge or other such actions but that is to be decided on an individual basis.

People should support the troops because the troops are merely pawns to be used by the generals and war profiteers. Those who initiate or promote the continuation of the war are the ones who people shouldn't support.

Yes, if you are able and it won't really harm you i think you are obliged help those less fortunate. It is a sad fact that we live an apathetic society where we choose to blame the less fortunate than try to help them. Some people are in their social status because of their own actions but many more are because they didn't have the support or ability to be more fortunate.

A moral obligation to help does not mean you need to give someone a job, money etc, just to care and do something to help them out no matter how little as long as it is sincere. The more you can help the better, obviously, but just acknowledging there position and trying to help them is all that is required morally.

We can often do a lot, with very little cost to our selves, to help those in need and to judge and blame the less fortunate shows a weak or hypocritical moral standing and lack of compassion that is a very sad yet common state of humanity in many societies.

I don't think it should be between Democrat and Republican because some democrats would be more able and some republicans would be more able. With the current republican party i would not want them to run the country if WW3 broke out. Democrats may not be so eager to jump to biological or nuclear weapons as republicans but that doesn't mean they wouldn't be as capable or more capable of protecting the united states. Following "rules" of war don't harm our troops, not properly protecting them, deploying them, and training them harms are troops and yet that is what the republicans have done lately. I trust the democrats to take the required time, that is practical, to properly fight the war in order to reduce American causalities and innocent civilians. But in the end, it should not matter if they are a republican or democrat as long as they do every thing they can to protect the American people, without accepting political or ideological influences that would hinder that ultimate goal.

Obama has let me down. I didn't think he would do everything he said, in fact i was skeptical that he would not follow through on a lot of his promises that got him the votes, especially from the grass roots population. To see obama actually going agaist what he said he would do, instead of just ignoring it like i thought he would, is very depressing. All i hope is that, due to the poor economy he has had to realocate resources and will return to his promises after the economy picks up again.

What the taliban do to those they capture is truly terrible but to say that some American or other person wouldn't do something as terrible seems overly optimistic and faithful. The Taliban and other terrorist groups are just "proud" to show their cruelty whereas most countries keep such information secret because it isn't too popular with the population.

The Geneva conventions, is something we should follow no matter what. Not following them will not give us an advantage or level the playing field, it is only cruel and with the intent of revenge. Just because the terrorist seem to lack any morals doesn't mean America should continue to throw away its morals.

Lifting the ban on the ivory trade, even if it is highly regulated, will just result in more killing of these creatures. I understand the idea of making use of things which have died to avoid waste but the positive intention will serve as a facade for the killing of these creatures secretly in order to turn a profit.

Selling ivory will only increase its demand and thus increase the incentive to kill elephants and other creatures for ivory. The poor economic state of the countries, where the selling of ivory is proposed could to help lift the economy, are not the result of the ban and in reality would not gain much if ivory were sold only from animals that died of natural causes. Also there isn't an economical way to ensure that the ivory was collected from elephants that died of natural causes.

Ivory might look pretty to some people but lifting the ban to bring in some money will only create more problems for the elephants and the ecosystem as well as people.

Even though I think that fast food companies could do more to combat the issue i don't think they are truly at fault. The real problem I think is American society along with the public that has created this epidemic. We are a fast paced society that can't stop to wait. We also love meat and expect if to be part of every meal. The costs are low because of several reasons but also because the government subsidizes a lot of the meat production process making it ridiculously cheap to purchase and still allow the fast food companies to make a profit. Government doesn't help subsidizes as greatly if at all the creation of healthier foods and thus they cost more.

Another problem is of course the public, not only those who are obese but those who aren't. They don't really care. The obese people, while some do have legitimate health issues, often aren't willing to go all the way to get healthier. They look for that easy weight loss diet, pill, meditation, what ever. Its going to take a lot of work, both diet wise and exercise wise to get healthier, don't one won't solve the problem. Also the people who aren't obese often just blame the problem on the obese people for being lazy and don't care to actually help.

It really goes back to society, we are told that there are shortcuts to everything(get rich, get muscular, lose weight etc...) and also that we should see life only as a individualistic competition amongst everyone else and thus it isn't proper to care to help others to better society as a whole.

How I see the relationship between the US government and the UN is that the US uses the UN name and its forces to project it's forigne policy onto other nations. The US is with and even supportive of the UN as long as the UN does what the US wants. Once the UN disagrees with the US however, the UN has No authority or meaning to the US; the recent wars in the middle east are great examples. So I see the UN as a tool used by the US to get what it wants, but i think that the idea of the UN is good and if it could stop being used as a tool by the US it could actually do what it is supposed to do.

If the UN is to have authority or input into other countries in an attempt to create peace i see no reason why the US must can be exempt from that same authority and questioning. The US isn't a shining beacon of morality and recently, because of forces such as the Military Industrial Complex, it has made choices that hinder attempts at peace. Change will have to come from within but it doesn't look like that's happening anytime soon.

As for the closing of the NY HQ i was more vague than i thought, i think that the HQ should be in a country that actually cares and listens to the UN but i don't think that the NY office complex should be shutdown completely just not the main HQ of the UN.

First of all as others have pointed out, Putin isn't the president of Russia right now and thus legally isn't in control of Russia. Also Putin is popular in Russia for what he has done for the country. After the breakup of the Soviet Union the majority of the population's living standards dropped and the economy was even more crippled. Russia still has a long way to go but Putin, while he was president, has done a lot to raise the living standard and get the economy going even if it is still slow. Putin isn't a bad person, but he is bad in the eyes of many Americans because he doesn't blindly and passively accept all US foreign policy. In the interest of world peace we shouldn't try to continually demonize Putin or Russia just because they don't agree with some of the United States foreign policies such as the missile shield program being developed in Poland and the Czech republic. In the interest of world peace the United States and Russia need to be willing to compromise and listen to each others concerns and ideas. This isn't the cold war and there is no reason why any country should seek increased tensions for the sake of power and influence in areas they have no positive plan or intentions for. Putin has dealt with the United States in a way other nations should have. He didn't easily get pushed aside by hollow assurances of honesty or promises from the United States. He didn't accept United States polices on presentation and face value alone. He didn't worry more about upsetting the US government than about protecting his citizens. He wasn't afraid to stop dealing with a nation that doesn't care whatsoever for his citizens. In the interest of world peace nations should put aside their pride, put aside the commanding religion, put aside the economic system and just worry about the protection of their citizens from those who mean harm either directly as in warfare or indirectly as in denying aid to those in need.

The idea that the U.S should throw out the U.N is absurd yet iconic of U.S views of organization. The mission of the U.N is to attempt to create and maintain a level of peace and thus attempt to stop a new world war. The U.S generally doesn't like the U.N because the members of the U.N don't support all U.S actions without question and sometimes resistance. These members fail to see that the U.S always knows what is right and is also morally right because God is on our side. I find it ironic to even say that the US should throw the U.N out, for it is the U.S that doesn't cooperate or compromise with the U.N. If anything the U.S should be thrown out because it doesn't even listen to the will of the U.N. Maybe the U.N should leave its New York headquarters though since the U.S doesn't even care about it.

Just because Guantanamo Bay isn't on the US mainland doesn't mean that it shouldn't follow the same rules that are followed on it. It is basically an extension of the US where torture and other acts against humanity can occur without law. It is a disgrace to America and to humanity and any continued use or defense of the center and the actions taken part in it expose hypocrisy, hate, and acceptance of fear as a tool the US can use against anyone it doesn't like for political or other motives. Shutting down Guantanamo Bay is a great move by Obama and gives hope for a better United States.

Yes it was based off of religious beliefs and gay marriage doesn't harm anyone. No one should have their rights taken away to begin with, especially when the reason to do so is because of a belief system, that is not supported by everyone, that thinks it is disrespectful and harmful to an idea.

I don't care if you respond or even read this but i want to make some points clear.

First off i know where that quote came from i read your posts completely.

Yes I never thought you were praising Hitler what's wrong with me pointing that out? Also i didn't say you didn't hate Hitler what i was saying is that being american doesn't by default make you hate Hitler. I never said that Americans didn't suffer that they shouldn't be respected so i don't know why you are getting so defensive.

I understand that you don't care about Russia, it was obvious when I read your first post on the topic, but i don't see a reason why you can't respect them for fighting against Hitler just like most people respect the Americans and British for fighting against Hitler.

In my post I brought up nothing about if America would win against Russia or about the fact that yes Russia almost lost against Germany. So did you actually read my full post? because if you did why did you complain about something that wasn't there?

Even though i disagreed with you fervently from the start I tried to be respectful of your post, i don't see why you couldn't do the same. Just because I was defending Russia and disagreeing with you in that post doesn't make me a commy, a bastard, or an idiot.

First of all Russia's contribution to the war was vary important to defeating Germany. Even if you deny the military contribution of Russia, you can't possibly deny that Russia didn't force Germany to fight on two flanks. Because Germany split its forces it was not able to conquer all of Western Europe, but nonetheless it came close. As with with orders i think you will find that at first Stalin called the shots as well, so it wasn't just Germany that didn't have command and communication problems.

Largely because Russia once was "communist" America for the longest time and currently in some areas hates and distrusts Russia. That is obvious just from the media bias against Russia in the last few years plus the entire cold war period. And your point that "Russia, for that brief moment in history was one of the good guys" is further proof that many still don't like Russia. Russia has been demonized because it was "communist". If you look at America's involvement throughout the world you sill see that majority of the time America is perfectly fine with allowing a dictatorship exist.

While i don't think you were praising Hitler you were belittling the sacrifices of Russians by saying that the reason Germany lost was because of Hitler's mistakes. In just the battle of Stalingrad Russia lost a million Russians, whereas america lost no more than 600,000 during all of world war 2.

As an american means nothing to the degree you deplore Hitler since compared to Russia, or any Western European nation America suffered little under Hitler's cruelty. You should deplore Hitler as a human being, being american has nothing to do with it as history has proven america has also recklessly killed innocence people, but behind the name of democracy and spreading capitalism.

No nation demands respect but when a people of that nation fight for their lives and to destroy an enemy such as hitler they demand respect. Russians, Americans, Britons and others demand respect for their fight against Hitler's war machine. Put aside your anti-Russian bias and think of them as just human beings and then realize that they were human beings just like you and me but the majority of them lived through a fate they could not prevent and far worse than most if any american has experienced.

Cats are my favorite pets because they are clean, cute, friendly, and fascinating to watch(when they aren't sleeping but some poses are really funny or sweet). I have three cats and they mean a lot to me. If I am sad they will come and sit by me. I can let them go outside and they will return when I call them. They are not kittens anymore but they are always willing to play. They know when they are wanted or not and act accordingly all the time. I have always loved cats as pets and wild cats are my favorite animals.

Many of the things I said I want America to be are things that America once was and I just want to return to and then improve. Also none of this goes against human nature it just goes against capitalism, where I'll admit in american and many other places is accepted as human nature. There are many nations that have a form of universal health care and not only are they not communist but they will probably never be, such examples include Canada and most of Western Europe.

Are you against helping the poor because it is "communist". Helping the poor is just the wish to help your fellow human being, something I consider to be a natural and basic human instinct; any political or economic system can allow helping those in need and thus to say that any attempt to help the poor is communist seems rather ignorant and indifferent.

I want America to be ahead of the social curve. I want America to be a place where equality is never jeopardized by any religion. I want America to be a place where those who voluntarily work for their community to make it a better place are more recognized and appreciated for what they do. I want America to have universal health care. I want America to reduce and if possible eliminate the gap between rich and poor. I want America to be a place where corruption finds no home or support. I want America to have the best education possible that is economically and socially accessible to everyone. I want America to be the leader in green technologies. I want America to worry more for its citizens than for corporations and their profits. I want America to focus on helping its own citizens instead of invading and occupying other nations to exploit them, dictate their government and force a capitalist economy. Most of all I want America to become compassionate about the world and all who inhabit it; to understand that we are not republicans or democrats, not Americans or non-Americans but humans on a planet with other humans and creatures.

Like I have said before I think he is calm and level headed and thus i don't believe he will fold under pressure. What I am worried about is people watching him like a hawk waiting for him to possibly fold under pressure. There almost seems a desire by certain groups of Americans that, as terrible as it seems, want him to. Why, i think so they can make a point that Obama's self control has denied them; I think they're out for blood. I'm hopefully overreacting and certainly starting to stray off topic but the point is i think between Obama and any of the other republican candidates Obama would certainly win and not fold under pressure.

I think if the animal is killed just for its fur and then you buy and or wear it it is morally wrong. If the animal is already dead then I don't necessarily consider it morally wrong for that individual to make use of any part of the animal but the message it sends(wearing fur is OK/cool/fashionable etc...) could be. Unless you are stuck up in the mountains or some other remote place I find it morally wrong to kill any animal for its fur.

While it is annoying I think the context of the post is more important. It would be nice however if people could take more time into creating logical and readable sentences. While English grammar can be difficult for non-native English speakers, spelling should be no problem because of the the incorporated spell check on CD and thus I feel that spelling incorrectly anything other than names or capitalization is just lazy. Nonetheless, I never down vote a debate because of spelling or grammatical errors for it is what they say that is most important.

I read your initial post and saw your position on pathogens and i agree that they should be killed completely, but it seems that few in power are willing to go to the great lengths to see that happen. My response, if it wasn't as obvious as i was hoping, was in regards to endangered animals such as clouded leopards and black footed ferrets as well as other animals.

No of course not. They are just following a different lifestyle than a lot of people; there is nothing wrong with that. If a person is a vegetarian for the environment, for health, or for animal rights it is their choice and a noble one at that.

I agree the title of the debate seems rather insulting and ignorant.