Yes, it would, but only in the technical sense that if you eliminated ANY particular race from America it would be safer, because naturally, people of every race commit crime. I think what you're trying to bait in this question is to what magnitude would America be a safer place? I don't think we can accurately guess that, but statistics show that African-Americans are convicted more per capita than any other race for crime in the US. This is more correlated to socioeconomics than it is to some innate "problem" with African-Americans. But if we're going to be honest and offensive here, there is a cultural of ignorance and anti-intellectualism that unfortunately exists in African-American communities in the US that contributes to this problem as well.

If Africa was a body part on the human body, it would either be a festering asshole or an armpit that hasn't been washed in a few centuries.

Seeing as it is a black hole for humanitarian aid and the leaders of most countries there are more interested in filling their pockets with money rather than filling the bloated bellies of their people with food, I say the chances of it becoming a world power are about as likely as a retard teaching physics to Steven Hawking.

This would an appropriate description for Corky from "Life Goes On."

I think it's retarded in this respect, because at least Nathan exercised some cunning and some higher level thought processes. Corky was like just a lovable dumb ass. Now, while there certainly isn't anything lovable about Black Supremacist Theology, it surely is dumb as dog shit.

All prophecies are self fulfilling. If it happens, it is because we willed it to happen.

So instead of a rebuttal, you simply down vote my argument. How insightful.

I make Flu Vaccines for a living at Medimmune Inc, and you try and tell me I'm ignorant of basic biology.

I don't care. And based on what you've written, I'm seriously speculative of this assertion.

Let me explain biology to you. Biology is the study of life, not the study of evolution. Biology if studied correctly and used in the right manner can be used to create new life and new creations for the benefit for humanity.

Wrong. Evolution is a study within biological science. The study of life includes the way life changes. The fact you are disputing this very well-known generally accpeted concept is why I seriously question your credentials.

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/charles-darwin-the-theory-of-evolution.html

Flu vaccines are created by injecting eggs with the virus, then retracted from the egg and grown in a flask for approx a week. After growing it in the flask you use that for innoculum for a larger vessel called a bio-reactor for another week. After this stpe you recover the vaccine through filtration and centrifuge then it is sent to be sterilized and bottled for human consumption.

We keep the virus frozen at -80 degrees celsius so we can thaw it and use it as many times as necessary to ake new vaccines. I've been doing this for more than 15 years and have yet had to collect a new virus, because the flu has 95% of the rhinovirus properties it had the previous year. The only thing that may change is the strength at which we make the vaccine.

So what? Is there a point that is supposed to follow? You freeze cells at a level where cellular movement is impossible and don't see a change in the virus...no kidding. Thank you for that observation, Captain Obvious.

So, when you say I'm ignorant of basic biology think again. That's why I feel so strongly about creationism. I live and breathe it everyday. That's why when people talk about evolution, I want them to prove it. Prove we came from an animal and not dust, and if we came from an animal; why aren't more animals evolving into humans. I mean I work with bacteria everyday and they're not evolving into different bacteria, the only way they change is if I force them to change by either manipulating their eenvironment or disecting them and programming them to produce something different.

I didn't say your were ignorant of biology, but your words make it appear to be so. You're asking for proof of the origin of life. Again, you are the type of person that misunderstands the question. Evolution isn't about the origin of life, and it's about how life changes. Abiogenesis is the question regarding the origin of life.

It takes manipulation for something to change, it doesn't just happen.

No shit. Heat, pressure, and other environemental factors contribute to evolution. Creationism is the argument "stuff just happens."

Let's look at the numbers:

1 Billion Chinese

5 Billion World

Answer: No.

This is one of the most commonly misunderstood and misphrased arguments. Evolution we know occurs. We have observed it under microscopes at the molecular level and tracked it in earth science. Those who try to argue "intelligent design" are really arguing abiogenesis. How the universe was created and whether organisms evolve are two completely separate inquiries and have nothing to do with one another. One is a biological question, the other is a physics/metaphyscial question.

If you believe in creationism aka the Adam and Eve story...you're a fucking moron.

Consensual sex with a paedophile does not, and a large number of studies suggest that children who engage in consensual sex with both other children and adults face no repercussions later in life.

Please cite these "studies."

It forgets to mention, the land where we give huge corporations bailouts funded by the taxpayer when times get tough but tell those same middle class taxpayers to "fuck off" if they need affordable healthcare.

But yeah, I agree with the sentiment.

No, because there is no hell...............................dur!!

First, there is no occupation of the Golan Heights. They have been annexed. Second, there is an occupation of the West Bank, no argument there. However, the West Bank is in considerably better economic shape than Gaza and is well provided for by the Israeli tax dollar. That is what happens when you don't randomly shoot Qassam rockets at a neighboring civilian population. Now, let's entertain the Gaza "occupation" argument:

We had a blockade on Cuba during the Cold War. We weren't considered "occupiers" of Cuba.

We control the ingress of goods and people inside and outside of our country. We're not considered "occupiers" of Canada or Mexico.

As far as I can tell, we don't control the airspace over any other country but our own, but I'm sure we would if we had an enemy in close proximity to the US that regularly attacked us. No wait, actually we would obliterate them. I'm sure the UN wouldn't be calling us "occupiers."

As far as I can tell, so long as there is no military presence inside of Gaza, dictating their government or affairs, then there is no occupation to speak of. Naval and air blockades are valid defensive measures exercised by Israel to secure their safety - the first priority of any nation on the planet.

The reality there is an invidious bias and information war against Israel. If it couldn't be anymore evident, her detractor's goal is to delegitimize her right to self-defense using catch-22s and moral asymmetry.

Furthermore, there is no "humanitarian crisis" going on in Gaza. Gaza receives more aid then they actually deserve. Look at the numbers for yourself.

So, even if there is an "occupation" (which there isn't), then it appears Israel isn't violating the terms of the Geneva Convention as Gazan Arabs receive PLENTY of aid and food. Biased inflated opinions by Human Rights groups and NGOs change the story when you look at their own numbers which paint a very different picture.

So, here's the rub...what is the solution? Israel has a hostile entity that attacks it constantly putting their citizens in Ashkelon, Ashdod, and Beersheva in a perpetual state of terror. So, it appears either Israel must reoccupy Gaza and annihilate Hamas...or treat them the like just another unoccupied hostile entity and obliterate them like any other country would. But the anti-Israel crowd wants to have their cake and eat it too: Feed the enemy that prays for your destruction and assist them in doing so...or you're immoral war criminals. LMFAO!

Yes. It respects an Establishment of religion therefore it violates the First Amendment. If a valid challenge were brought before the SCOTUS, it would fail the test outlined in Lemon v. Kurtzman. The SCOTUS has been too chicken shit to address the matter, so they don't hear the arguments based on standing grounds. The day when a challenger wants to fund the costly litigation to hire the appellate attorneys to handle this case and has standing to do so, the court will either find the words "under God" violate the Establishment clause...or they're going to create some new test to analyze these issues to keep it in.

How you extrapolate my last post to mean that I endorse some view that Muslim Arabs were expelled by Israeli forces defies logic. I have no idea where you have suddenly invented this position, but it is grounded in fantasy. My point was that the document you cling to refutes the exact proposition you're aiming to prove. As a matter of practice, I don't cite to wikipedia anyway, because any idiot can go on there and edit an article. I preferred to reference the very words of the people, the Palestinian themselves, as proof they left due to fear, hysteria, and orders of the higher ups.

If you think a state that offers its minorities the same rights as its citizens, the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, that tries is minimilize collateral damage as much as possible during war, that is a liberal open democracy is the moral equivalent to a theocratic thugocracy that rules a region under the iron first of dictatorship, murdering the political opposition, no freedom of religion or speech, and using it's own people as body shields you are either blind, bat shit crazy, or invidiously biased.

I'm not sure if there is really a point in debating this topic with you. You seem impenetrable to facts, view this conflict through a myopic prism of situational ethics, and don't even know the basic history of conflict nor the characteristics of the belligerents.

In the future, you may want to consider not pontificating on things you don't understand.

And from the very link you just posted:

Palestinian Arab fears

In a 1958 publication, Don Peretz rejected both the Israeli and Palestinian explanations of the exodus. Peretz suggested that the exodus could be attributed to "deeper social causes of upheaval within the Palestine Arab community" such as the breakdown of all governing structures. According to him, "The community became easy prey to rumor and exaggerated atrocity stories. The psychological preparation for mass flight was complete. The hysteria fed upon the growing number of Jewish military victories. With most Arab leaders then outside the country, British officials no longer in evidence, and the disappearance of the Arab press, there remained no authoritative voice to inspire confidence among the Arab masses and to check their flight. As might be expected in such circumstances, the flight gathered momentum until it carried away nearly the whole of the Palestine Arab community"[10]

In 1959, Rony Gabbay wrote:

"The departure of the Arabs of Palestine from towns and villages during April-15 May 1948 cannot be attributed to any specific reason. Rather, the exodus was the result of many diverse elements - psychological, military and political - which combined together to produce this phenomena. It was a result of the contradictory actions and reactions which destroyed all hopes in the hearts of the Arab population and urged them to flee aimlessly hither and thither. The way in which groups and even members of the same families fled, individually and in different directions can give us an idea of the degree of panic and horror which was felt amongst them"[10]

In their volume on the 1947-1948 period in Jerusalem and surrounding areas, O Jerusalem!, Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre give a variety of explanations for the cause of the 1948 Palestinian exodus, but conclude, "Above all, fear and uncertainty fueled the Arabs' flight."[105] Middle East historian Karen Armstrong described a similar mechanism.[106] Schechtman, argues in his book The Arab Refugee Problem that a large part of the exodus was caused by Arab fear of attack, reprisal, and the other stresses of war. Schechtman himself attributes this purely to the perspective of the refugees. He expounds this theory as follows:

"Arab warfare against the Jews in Palestine […] had always been marked by indiscriminate killing, mutilating, raping, looting and pillaging. This 1947-48 attack on the Jewish community was more savage than ever. Until the Arab armies invaded Israel on the very day of its birth, May 15, 1948, no quarter whatsoever had ever been given to a Jew who fell into Arab hands. Wounded and dead alike were mutilated. Every member of the Jewish community was regarded as an enemy to be mercilessly destroyed. […]

[T]he Arab population of Palestine anticipated nothing less than massacres in retaliation if the Jews were victorious. Measuring the Jewish reaction by their own standards, they simply could not imagine that the Jews would not reply in kind what they had suffered at Arab hands. And this fear played a significant role in the Arab flight.[107]

Schechtman also cites evidence that the Arab leaders spread rumors of atrocities that did not actually occur, which only added to the Palestinian Arabs' fears.[108] According to Avraham Sela, the Palestinian exodus began with news of the Zionists' military victories in April-May 1948:

"[T]he offensive had a strong psychological effect on Palestinian-Arab villagers, whose tendency to leave under Jewish military pressure became a mass exodus. […] [T]he exodus was a spontaneous movement, caused by an awareness of the Arab weakness and fear of annihilation typical in civil wars. Moreover, an early visible departure of nearly all the leadership was clearly understood as a signal, if not as an outright command."[109]

In his conclusions concerning the second wave of the flight, Morris also cites the atrocity factor as a one of the causes. What happened or allegedly happened and in a more general way the massacre of Deir Yassin and its exaggerated description broadcast on Arab radio stations undermined Arabs morale.[110] Yoav Gelber also considers that the "Haganah, IZL and LHI's retaliations terrified the Arabs and hastened the flight".[111]

Childers, while dismissing the fact that Arab leaders instigated the flight on radio broadcasts, points out that Zionist radio broadcasts were designed to demoralize the Arab audience.[112] The author cites the fact that rumours were spread by the Israeli forces that they possessed the atomic bomb.[113] Similarly, Khalidi points to what he describes as the Zionist "psychological offensive" which was highlighted by, though not limited to, radio messages warning the Arabs of diseases, the ineffectiveness of armed resistance and the incompetence of their leaders.[114]

Claims by Arab sources that support that the flight was instigated by Arab leaders

Former Prime Minister of Syria Khalid al-Azm recalled in his memoirs, "We brought disaster upon one million Arab refugees, by inviting them and bringing pressure to bear upon them to leave their land, their homes, their work and their industry."[138] Abu Iyad made similar observations in his own memoirs.[139]

After the war, a few Arab leaders tried to present the Palestinian exodus as a victory by claiming to have planned it. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Said was later quoted as saying: "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down."[140]

Contemporary Jordanian politician Anwar Nusseibeh believed that the fault for the exodus and military loss was with the Arab commanders: "the commanders of the local army thought in terms of the revolt against the British in the 1930s. The rebels had often retreated to the mountains .... But the Jews were fighting for complete domination, so the fighters had erred in withdrawing from the villages instead of defending them […]."[141]

The Arab National Committee of Haifa, the Arab leadership in Haifa in 1948, wrote and delivered a report on the flight of roughly 60,000 Arabs from Haifa. The report said, "[T]he removal of the Arab inhabitants from the town was voluntary and carried out at our request."[142]

"Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring, brotherly states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down," wrote Habab Issa of Al-Hoda, the leading newspaper for Lebanese Maronites in the United States.[143] A Muslim weekly newspaper in Beirut similarly reported, "Who brought the Palestinians to Lebanon as refugees, suffering now from the malign attitude of newspapers and communal leaders […]? The Arab States [sp], and Lebanon amongst them, did it!"[144]

Mahmoud Abbas, at the time Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, would later recall: "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live."[145]

Jamal Husseini, the brother of Palestinian military and religious leader Hajj Amin Husseini, wrote to the Syrian UN representative, "The regular [Arab] aremies did not enable the [Arab] inhabitants of [Palestine] to defend themselves, but merely facilitated their escape from Palestine."[146] Palestinian military leader Emile Ghoury expressed similar views. Furthermore, Palestinian Arab protesters in the West Bank took to the streets on the occasion of "the first anniversary of Israel's establishment" to place blame on "the Arab states for the creation of the refugee problem."[147]

Oh really and what "agenda" do you suppose I am pushing for?

If ever there was an objective observer, it is I. I am neither Jewish nor Muslim. I don't have any family in Israel or any neighboring country. I have nothing to gain either way. I am telling you the events as I see them. And what I see is injustice.The Jews had absolutely no right to rule Israel. It is this reason (among others) the Arab world hates the west.

And the "They did it too several hundred years earlier" argument just isn't going to fly.

I find it hilarious when I engage people in this discussion that claim to be "objective observers" yet maintain un-mitigating positions even when confronted with historical facts disproving or watering down their point.

The Jews have every right to Israel. The United Nations voted for its creation and sovereignty. A displaced oppressed people with no homeland are back where they originally came from and now govern themselves for the first time in 2000 years. Israel was the solution to world's greatest refugee problem that lasted 2000 years. Call it karma, call it justice, whatever you call it, it's fair. There was no Palestinian goverment nor culture nor people. In the words of Walid Shoebat, "Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?" The occupying force at the time, Great Britain, allowed Jewish immigration there which actually began in the early 1880s. Jews changed the demographics of a relatively sparsely populated wasteland and made it flourish. It wasn't until Jews started growing oranges the size of basketballs that we heard of the "long lost love" of Palestine by the supposed "Palestinians." Jews were willing to live peacefully side by side with Arabs. Both were going to have their own states. Arabs rejected that. Thanks to the racist, replacement ideology of Arabs, you have a 60 plus year conflict.

So, what is your solution towards a peace plan? Funny, that through is whole conversation I haven't heard you utter the word "peace" once.

Last time I checked Abraham came from the Land of Canaan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CanaanMap.jpg

Regardless, the point refuted is that Jews are indigenous to Europe - they're not.

I am aware of the Palestinian Exodus, the same way I'm aware of the Jewish Exodus from Arab lands. If you're going argue this topic, you may want to try getting your facts and history straight.

The Balfour Declaration took place in 1917. There was no exodus or displacement of Arabs then. What you're confusing the Balfour Declaration with was the refusal of the UN Partition Plan of 1947 by the Arab world which resulted in the War of 1948 that ultimately ended up displacing the now called "Palestinians."

The Palestinian refugee problem was created by Arab aggression - not Israeli. Palestinians fled due to the war started by the Arabs and others left at the request of their leaders with promises of coming back to their land owning twice the amount:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72Ata-hY9WQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuGqpFxogRg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr1ZOeQVZEI

Ultimately, fear and hysteria were the causes for the displacement of the Palestinians which was as a result of war STARTED by Arabs. The same Arabs that refused to absorb their native peoples, Jordanians, Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis creating a refugee problem after the war of '48.

I don't give a damn that Christians were tolerant of other Christians. This isn't about the Roman Empire or Christendom. You made a point that the Islamic Empire was "tolerant" of other religions. Yes, to an extent, so long as they were second class citizens under their theocracy. Very "tolerant" indeed. It doesn't justify the treatment. You're not furthering your argument. I was merely pointing out that Muslims are guilty of the exact same thing you accuse the Jews of doing on a march larger, grander scale. You excuse one kind of imperialism but criticize an alleged other. Welcome to flawed logic and hypocrisy.

Finally, you can keep repeating to yourself that "the Jews stole other people's land," but that doesn't make it true. Obviously, you're trying to justify an agenda. The reality is Jews could have lived peacefully with Arabs. The Arabs refused such a proposal, and the Palestinians have been deprived of a State due to their shitty leadership. Furthermore, this isn't about land. This is about religion. This is about Islamic replacement theology. Tell me what "Palestinian" refugee problem and mistreatment of 1929 caused 67 Jews to be massacred in Hebron?

I think there should be a two state or possibly a three state solution. I believe in moving forwards towards a peace initiative. I believe Palestinians should have the right to self-determination as well. But as long as people keep clinging to the bullshit notion that "Jews stole land" like a dog humping a teddy bear and exercising intellectual dishonesty, no progress is going to made.

I'm not sure which version of history you're reading, but the Balfour declaration didn't require the "forceful" removal of small groups of Egyptians, Syrians, and Jordanians (later to be called "Palestinians") whom inhabited the land of "Palestine" for roughly one hundred years as nomads besides those in Jerusalem. The Balfour Declaration internationalized the area...it didn't require the removal of anyone. Arabs that might have chosen to leave due to hostility to Jewish immigration made their bed.

And yes Muslims were tolerant of others they conquered so long as they lived as dhimmis under their empire. Nothing quite as tolerant as being a second class citizen, like a Black guy under Jim Crow laws. LMFAO!

I see you justify imperialism but find something wrong with immigration and treaties. Interesting.

Go to Israel, Gaza, or the West Bank and ask any Arab-Israeli or Palestinian over 65 where they're grandfather came from. I think you'll be surprised to hear their answer, and it's not "Palestine."

Look at common "Palestinian" surnames:

They are the family names indicating the country of origin of their bearers. Al Massri means the Egyptian, Al Urduni means this person is Jordanian, El Iraqi - you understand this person is from Iraq, Al Lubnani means the Lebanese. Hell, look at the name Yasser ARAFAT. Arafat is a community west of Mecca.

Regardless whether Jews have an ancestral right to that land or the Palestinians believe themselves to be "the natives," the ultimate point is that this all a bad faith argument. Israel exists. Deal with it.

The two sides can work towards a peaceful objective or continue the pissing contest. The reality is Palestinians could have had a country in '48, '68, or in the 90s, but all offers were rejected. It appears the greatest enemy to Palestinians are Palestinians.

If you had the slightest clue regarding the history this conflict, you would know the British didn't kick anyone out. Of course, I guess as long as Muslims are the ones that do the "kicking," it doesn't seem to bother you. You know the expansion of the Islamic Empire wasn't exactly a consensual take over.

Erm..................................ever heard of medical ethics???

"Palestine has never existed... as an autonomous entity. There is no language known as Palestinian. There is no distinct Palestinian culture.... There has never been a land known as Palestine governed by Palestinians.... Palestinians are Arabs, indistinguishable from Jordanians (another recent invention), Syrians, Lebanese, Iraqis, etc.... Keep in mind that the Arabs control 99.9 percent of the Middle East lands. Israel represents one-tenth of one percent of the landmass. But that's too much for the Arabs. They want it all. And that is ultimately what the fighting in Israel is about today.... No matter how many land concessions the Israelis make, it will never be enough."

- Joseph Farah, Arab-American editor and journalist, WorldNetDaily.Com, 11 October 2000

That would make sense if Israel was in fact occupying Gaza which they are not. There was a complete military withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 hoping that there would be a land for peace deal. Israel uprooted their own citizens that had been living there for years and made a very painful land concession for a shot at peace. We all saw how that turned out. Israel gave them land, Hamas decided to fire more rockets at Israel's civilian population. Try researching this issue instead of relying on some BS anti-Israel website, and you might learn a thing or two.

Your 2nd paragraph more aptly describes what Hamas has been doing to the Palestinians - not the Israelis.

Erm...the Jewish people aren't indigenous to Russia, Europe, etc..

They're from Israel. They were displaced by the Romans. The Romans renamed the area "Palestine" which translated to "Phillistine" as a swipe insult to the Jews they expelled.

Their have been DNA studies that show even Ashekenazis Jews have a genetic link to that region.

What you're making is a bad faith argument, because Israel DOES exist and is a sovereign nation. If you really want "peace and love," try working from that framework towards some workeable solution.

As long as Hamas controls Gaza, doesn't recognize Israel's right to exist, and continues to launch rockets, there isn't going to be any peace.

Jews don't have an interest in torturing Palestinians, they just want to live in peace. It is however Muslims that seem to have interest in annihilating Jews.