Too much of anything leads to trouble.

i don't think anyone can deny the benefits of water. But if you have too much of it you can die from water poisoning. This principle can apply to your argument. By stating that hardship and misfortune taken to the extreme result in slavery and hopelessness doesn't mean that it has no benefit in more reasonable situations.

I support the Supreme Court's decision and I have never nor do I ever plan on wielding or owning a gun. My reasoning is a bit different from what I've been reading below and I would like to point this out.

For people that think owning a gun is going to protect them from criminals you are sorely mistaken. It may protect you from petty thieves and part time crooks but full time crooks are not scared of guns. As the public holds more and more weapons, criminals will be pushed to become more and more dangerous as a means of survival. You'll be treated as if you were a drug dealer. They'll kill you first and then take your stuff and your gun.

So why do I support the decision? Because I believe that the founders included this provision as a means for us to protect ourselves from a government that was becoming more and more tyrannical. When citizens are armed with weapons, the possibility of a revolution is very real. People aren't going to pay taxes for crappy schools and if they try to collect from then they'll meet a neighborhood armed and ready to protect themselves. Sending the police to war against a neighborhood is a hard, unpopular decision to make, and most likely the police will not side with the government. It is a measure to hold the government accountable.

Please explain how the top of the food chain growing its own food source benefits the rest of the food chain. I actually am very interested to hear the other side of this argument.

I don't know about where you live. But where I'm from the animals live on owned property. Hunting season is not defined by their migration patterns because they don't have anywhere to go - we keep them 'fenced in' so to speak. Instead, hunting seasons are based on the best time to cull the populations of certain species, otherwise known as pruning.

When hunting said species there isn't really even a need to track. You can just sit up in a tree and wait because the small plots we allow them to roam guarantee that we will cross paths, regardless of whether we want to or not.

And most of all, almost no one is hunting for survival or to feed their families. They are doing it for recreation, much like a gardener would.

I'll debate it with you. Go ahead and make one.

Why do we keep trying to tie our oil reserves to our oil consumption? The facts are that the price of oil is rising because the global demand for oil keeps increasing. Us drilling and potentially jeopardizing our environment for the profit of multi-national oil companies doesn't make any sense. You can't honestly believe that because we own the reserves we're going to see much benefit from it. Those oil companies are going to sell it to whoever is going to pay the highest price, which means we have gained nothing at the pump by drilling in our water. It will help certain states generate more taxes but if an oil spill happens that jeopardizes the whole coast and potentially many more people. It's just not worth the risk regardless of how much they say they've changed, right now. On top of that, think of all of the money we'd have to spend just to regulate and enforce the restrictions that would protect us from these accidents.

I'm with Obama, invest that money into alternative fuels and renewable energy sources. That strategy is in the best interest of everyone in the nation. McCain's is the same thing he's just choosing to pander to a couple of states along the way...not a good sign of someone we should elect as the leader IMO.

Hunting is more ethical because we are part of the ecosystem and it makes us more accountable for our role within it. Hunt the same thing too much and run the risk of their prey overpopulating and/or losing your food source altogether. It also makes us accountable for our size and demands - keeping the integrity of the food chain.

Farming rids of us of the responsibilities we have at the top of the food chain. It puts our wants and needs above the rest and allows our populations to out pace our food source. Which explains where we currently are - artificially speeding up the growth and yields of plants and animals so we can increase our food supply.

I like steakhouses though so I in no way am advocating that I want to go back to a hunting/gathering society. Just pointing out that Lions are more ethical than we are.

I included the "after being told the dangers of doing this" in there for a reason. Obviously you should not punish a child for something they were never told was wrong or not to do. But if you have already explained that playing with fire is dangerous and shown them the consequences of it then it is on you as a parent to enforce these consequences. Anyone in this situation should also continue to educate their children further on the dangers of playing with fire because clearly they didn't understand the first time.

The problem with only re-explaining the dangers is that the child already has an instance of playing with fire (maybe more) where there was no grave consequence for their actions after being told that there would be. The point of a spanking is that there is no disconnect in what a parent says and the enforcement of these rules. It is something that should be reserved for things that you don't ever want your child doing and that you will never do because it can harm them or others.

Real parents don't beat the shit out of their kids and its offensive that you equate spanking with that. Also your understanding of a spanking is skewed. The lesson is learned prior to the actual physical punishment because a real parent will make sure they understand why they are getting spanked before they get spanked. The spanking is a necessary evil to enforce that the action should never get done again.

Spanking teaches plenty of children why they shouldn't misbehave. It is not the end-all-be-all solution for disciplining a child but it is one way of teaching children that certain actions will cause even the ones they love and who love them the most to want to hurt them. Sending a child to their room is also effective but it is not a replacement for spanking because they teach different things.

If you were to send a child to their room for playing with fire, after having been told the dangers of doing this, then you are not teaching them the playing with fire is dangerous and will result in pain and suffering. You are teaching them that playing with fire is unacceptable around you. These are not the same thing.

Our government is stretched way too thin in this day and age. It has proven itself inefficient at providing for all 50 states in a timely, needed, and fair manner. Each year more and more citizens are drawn to small sections of the country creating overburdened metropolises while other areas suffer from being so barren. Our states and neighborhoods need more help and assistance focused on their particular areas of the country. Trying to treat us as one nation without acknowledging that neighboring states have a lot more in common than ones on the other side of the country is continuing to hurt our potential in the modern world.

If we were to split up the functions of the federal government into NE, SE, NW, & SW divisions we would be able to better serve everyone and keep our existing government. The federal government would still follow the constitution and all states would come together to work on our behalf when dealing with the international community and disputes between the divisions but it would take a lot less of our money for that purpose. The majority of our tax dollars would stay and be spent in our sections of the country helping to spread the wealth, quality of life improvements, and innovation to more areas than just the big markets.