Mainly when it's not conducive to the debate such as trolling or one word answers.
I'm not sure the founding fathers would have supported screaming angry protests right outside the doors to a funeral. The founding fathers also had a moral compass and a sense of what was proper, and assumed that others had also. And the proof of this is that the constitution specifically says the right to "peaceable assemble". Shouting hateful things at a family grieving the loss of their 9 year old daughter is not viewed as "peaceable" by most.
Total land area of Earth: 148,939,100 km² (36,803,653,121 acres) Total population of Earth: 6,553,289,000 Average population density of Earth: 44.0 persons per square kilometer (5.62 acres per person)
There is no such thing as over population. People need to simply be less spoiled and dedicate more land towards farming and agriculture and less to shopping malls and roadways.
A 17 year old isn't a young child. He is is able to think and comprehend in most cases. There is no "magic age" and the day he turns 18 he automatically knows about things like murder and death, and that is the distinction we now use.
As some have already said: It depends on whether or not they can comprehend as an adult. The age that young people become mature and truly aware of the world around them varies so you can't make a blanket statement that an 18 year old should be tried as an adult but a 13 year old can't or shouldn't. BUT just because a 10 year old doesn't completely comprehend that he just took someone's life, and the seriousness of that action, doesn't mean he shouldn't be tried to the fullness of the law, or that he should do "easy time". There still should be some justice for the victims in the trajedy.
Different and extraordinary are two different concepts. Yes, every child is different, has his own likes/dislikes, and his own temperment. Extraordinary? No, as much as every parent would like to believe not all of them are extraordinary.
Love that idea!
Cell phones are a distraction to yourself and others and unnecessary at school. And we all know that the majority of kids who use cell phones at school aren't managing their calendars, they're texting when they should be paying attention to what they are doing.
"Social programs" are the premise of Socialism. Hence the name.
Failure is needed for progress, otherwise people stop working toward a better life and will put forth the minimum amount of effort to get the maximum benefits. (Like they are doing now) Why are we so afraid of failure? It gives motivation.
Not really sure about your two side options so I'll put mine over here ;)
No it won't change anything, but I think that anyone should be able to talk about their loved ones back home without fear.
You've picked an excellent place to do your terrible trolling. A place that's meant for debate and argument so people are going to reply to you no matter what, so I suppose in that sense, yes. BUT
Otherwise you only know one word, and all the rest of us are sick of hearing it.
Nothing wrong with being healthy, but it's not the federal government's job to make me so.
All kids naturaly love sweets, and kids don't have impulse control so they can't just make themselves eat healthy like you can.
You're right, parents are stupid, but spending more money on healthy food isn't going to make parents any smarter.
The GOP's tarnished their own image by selling out their party during Bush's presidency. They forced the Tea Party to come out of the woodwork.
No, if the person has expressed the wish to die we should not persecute those who assist them.
I think it should be a part of someone's living will along with the wishes for life support, DNRs etc.
Terry Chavez's case was so controversial because the issue has yet been unresolved. If it was legal then it would have been no big deal.
Murder of an inoccent victim is different than assisting someone who has expressed the wish to die in order to end or prevent their suffering.
The only argument you have for or against anything comes down to:
"You/they are a fag, and I hate you/them."
I don't think anyone is convinced.
1. That is their right as parents, no matter how much others may not like it.
2. Why is it that everyone is all upset about the quality of food that kids eat? That is only half the issue. No one is protesting movies, tv's, or video games, campaining against such evils, saying that "The evil video game industry is making our nation's children a bunch of fatties. We should put government bans on how many are allowed per household and put timers on all computers that turn off the pc when they've been on for too long in one house." Oh the outrage there would be. But that will be the next step after they take over what everyone can eat, how much we can eat and when.
This bill is just another way for the federal government to slowly work it's way into our lives to try and take over. "For our own good"
It should not be the work of the federal government to mandate such things. It should be up to the sates to decide how much funding to give public schools for nutritional programs.
As nice as it would be to cut off the abusive Ahole parents before they even get to that point, it's not a viable option.
Who would make the test? What type of parenting would be allowed? (There are too many different ways to parent that people don't agree with. ) Who would enforce it? What about those who passed the test initially, but then were abusive to their kids, or who raised spoiled brats?
This just isn't the best way to handle things...
I tend to agree with you, but I think that people like that are trolls. Don't feed the trolls and they go away. (Usually)
I have a hard time believing that his is a real profile and not just a jerk/troll trying to make trouble because he has nothing better to do.
Yes and no.
There is no quick fix to the problems our country faces. Bush didn't do it all, it took more than 8 years to get to the problems our nation faces today, but no we aren't expecting too much either. He made big promises, so now we are just expecting him to follow through with the promises he made. True it's only been 2 years, but when he ran he didn't say "We will make changes, it will just take 8 years" he just said he'd make changes.
He also had to know that there would be an election right in the middle of his term so that he was under a time limit to make the kinds of changes he promised. So I think he made some big promises that he just can't deliver.
All the news stations have an angle. Fox from the right, MSNBC and CNN from the left, and no one standing in the middle.
The thing that no one realizes is you have to get you information from more than just one source then make up your own mind.
You aren't looking at the whole picture of God, but rather just the things he does that you don't see as good. (By the way, all those things that people use from the old testiment in the Bible were just to pave the way to show people their need for MERCY from a loving Christ, but I digress)
If you knitted me a sweater, then raped my mom, these are two acts that I will probably remember forever when I think of you. BUT
Say you did these acts when you were 16, then you spent the rest of your life doing things that were good. Not just ok, but great. You became a Dr and spent your life healing people, and every oz of profit you made went to charity, you spent your off hours building houses for the homeless, talked to everyone with love, apologized and made up for what you did to me and my mom, payed all of our debts, and continued to live your life only in service of others.
If I then still viewed you as an ass, then that would be MY fault, only seeing that I wished to see instead of the good you did.
It was force pure and simple.
I applaud this woman for keeping a clear head while being attacked.
Only if we should take Kwanza out of Kwanza, or Hannukuh out of Hannukuh. Why would I get offended by something I don't believe in?
