Hey downvote.
Michael Moore is definitely not against America. Show me anything he ever said that says that. He's pointing out what's broken how is that against America?
You just stated our healthcare may not be the best...we're America dammit...it should be the best...what are you against America?
I love this Tug. WHO is a part of the UN...UN bad...therefore WHO bad.
Nixon most corrupt President ever...Nixon republican...therefore all republicans are corrupt. I wonder if this even comes close to registering with you how illogical your reasoning is?
Do you ever do any homework or bother to look anything up anywhere? It's kinda the same laziness your boy Bush is so found of.
I can't imagine anyone elected president is actually stupid. A lot of his administrations mismanagement of the government appears to be laziness. They didn't do their homework and it cost many of us dearly.
Bush is the most incompetent President I've ever experienced.
>>>we have advanced technology today. It's hard to prove an innocent person guilty.<<<
Really...seems to me all our technology can be so easily manipulated.
I'm not sure you fully understand how we could actually be paying more to kill someone then to keep them alive for life. You do know that in a lot of cases you as a tax payer pay for both the defense and the prosecution lawyers. A security guard makes $30 an hour and a lawyer makes $300 an hour. Death penalty cases involve a lot of appeals and them lawyers are really expensive.
I'm not sure it's a fact but I can certainly see how killing someone could actually cost taxpayers more. Your whole argument could be moot. You might want to come up with other reason to kill someone???
How many people are going to be confessing if they know they're going to die? Which brings to light another reason why you don't want the death penalty. Having the death penalty will reduce the number of people confessing.
On camera...c'mon any photo/video can be faked...there really is no foolproof system. Which is why even the courts make allowances for a reasonable doubt...what ever the hell that means.
Will you ever get off the 'tax money' pony? Others have mentioned how much more it is to kill someone then to sentence them to life in prison. So your one assertion could be shot to hell.
The other point is that our justice system is based on not violating a persons rights. If I acquire illegal evidence it is thrown out and you could be set free even though I have absolute proof of your guilt.
How can you have a justice system that will let a guilty man go if we violate his rights but will commit the ultimate violation of a mans rights by killing him? That's insane.
When has proof ever been guaranteed? There have been cases of positive ID, airtight evidence and new evidence has completely exonerated them. The point is that if you make a mistake there is no way you can ever take it back.
This alone is all you need to invalidate any argument in favor of the death penalty.
But I do have more.
Slash---
How does saying the same thing over and over again add to this debate.
>>>If we are sure they raped & killed those innocent children then we should let them die. We shouldn't be wasting our tax money on them.<<<
Yes we shouldn't be wasting our tax money on them. but how can we ever be sure?
It's been said that killing someone actually costs more money? I have no idea if that is true but the point is that you're not saving as much money as you'd think.
How can you be so sure that someone has taken a life?
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
If that man values life so little as to take the life of another, why should he have that precious gift?
I would agree but out judicial system is based on preserving a persons rights. Imagine if I find evidence that proves your guilt and I got it illegally, i.e. no warrant, that evidence is thrown out and you could be set free even though guilty. That's because I violated your rights.
Killing a person is the ultimate violation of their rights; one you cannot correct if you make a mistake.
It's definitely real.
The first problem is how much effect the warming is having on the animals(people are animals) that live on the planet.
The second problem is how much of the warming is caused by the people living on the planet and how much of the warming is a natural cycle?
What difference does it make? Taking care of our resources, living cleaner, finding energy alternatives, these are all good things. I would love to see the person who would disagree with that.
If there was a guaranteed way to determine guilt I would be in favor of the death penalty. The problem is that we make mistakes all the time. Any justice system is flawed. People are wrongly accused all the time and set free as new evidence comes to light.
How do you give a man back his life; if you've made a mistake?
God, in the bible, is one of the most evil dictators.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
Keep the advertising and tell parents to say...NO.
The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.
and another thing...(CD is fucking up wouldn't let me post this for some reason)
>>>In the Middle East terrorists blew up a Marine Corps barracks killing over 200 Americans. In Vietnam over 58,000 Americans were killed as a result of what JFK got us into.<<<
Remember...I brought this up. Not afraid to show the mans warts too.
The point is that those in support of Reagan keep touting his "strengthening" of the military. How? Where's you proof?
The barracks is an embarrassment because the Marines were warned of such an attack and thought they knew better. The sad thing is that a temporary concrete barrier is all it would've took to mitigate the damage.
Same thing with the only sortie the Navy flew. They lost 2 of 3 planes 1 pilot dead, 1 captured. They Israelis had been flying sorties for over a year; hundreds of them. They didn't loose one single plane in all that time. That's what I mean by embarrassment.
Tugman...
>>>One JFK was dead for over five years when man walked on the moon.>>>
Fail to see your point. He got the funding, made the call, set up a realistic deadline and the task got accomplished.
>>He also had an affair in office and was treated for gonorrhea as a result o his numerous affairs.<<<
Again fail to see your point. Sounds to me like he knew how to get the job done and have a good time. Maybe a bad man but very good president.
>>>He strengthened the military, too.>>FDR's tactics of moving through economic uncertainty would hurt the US in the future, so he came up with his own, much more effective and long-lasting solution.<<<
I would love to know your definition of "long lasting". It wasn't too much after he left office that the economy started tanking. Which is one reason Bush didn't get re-elected. The corporate bloat, that Reagan encouraged, is one of the factors for our current economic demise.
The fallacy of the "trickle down" theory is that very little gets trickled down. Companies aren't altruistic, nor should they be. But the basic tenant that with profits companies would reinvest into America is at best a 50/50 proposition. Sure some did but the majority took care of themselves; i.e. fat bonuses, perks and expenditures on luxuries. This is the Reagan economic legacy.
>>> One exception to the JFK legacy rocknwow...he escalated advisors. Lyndon Johnson escalated the war itself. Advisors had been there since Eisenhower.<<<
Definitely true but JFK escalated the American commitment to the war. I also thought he increased funding. Couldn't find a quick reference to that effect but I did find this.
"The only thing certain about Kennedy's role in Vietnam before he died was that he had escalated America's military, political, and maybe psychological commitment to Vietnam."
>>>He supported anti communist movements worldwide.
Shame on all those other presidents that supported communism.
>>>He defeated the soviet union.
They still there?
>>>He envisioned a smaller Government, and a greater America.
How? By increasing the deficit?
>>>To avoid long encounters with the press, he took reporters' questions with his helicopter roaring in the background.
Keeping Americans ignorant...there's a legacy for you.
>>>Think about it, if you are a terrorist, who frightens you more Reagan or Carter?<<<
Definitely Carter. Carter sent a mission to rescue the hostages...it failed but Carter wasn't riding the helicopter. Reagan made a call and asked if the terrorist needed guns. They tell him, "but you can't send me guns." "It's against the law???" He say, "Well...not a problem."
JFK
1. He averted nuclear war; backed the Russians down and created a safer America.
2. He put Americans on the moon.
3. He helped with the momentum of racial equality. Riding a delicate balance of advancement and status quo.
4. His administration brought to bear very creative measures; still used today, in fighting organized crime.
5. He helped streamline government; by bringing accountability and business practices into it.
6. He delayed Nixons occupation of the White House.
7. He made the decision to escalate Vietnam
His tenure was filled with opportunities and he stepped up to the plate knocking at least two home runs. But even Vietnam should be taken into the context of the times.
Reagan...puh-lease. His economic legacy is a part of our current economic collapse. He left the military fat and arrogant and; during his administration, they got their asses handed to them in the middle east. What an embarrassment.
Do we also forget that he negotiated with terrorist to provide them guns. Hello...anyone??? He actually wanted to put weapons in the hands of terrorists.
I will give you he did hasten the collapse of the iron curtain but that could be just as much JFK too.
Xaeon
You have a wiley habit of taking my quotes out of context. Please stop doing that.
My first two quotes in your rebuttal refer to your statement...
You don't see "Turns out, Einstien was right" articles popping up
You see lot's of them. You're wrong
"We are constantly bombarded with Einstein was right articles. I entered exactly that phrase and got 507,000 hits."
So what? I entered "evolution is right" and got 144,000,000 hits.
So what...reference above. This is an example of you taking my quote out of context and replying to something I never said.
The point is not, who has the most quotes, the point is that you made a statement that is wrong. That statement is...
You don't see "Turns out, Einstien was right" articles popping up
You do.
In the next two quotes of mine you do the exact same thing again. Please read my post.
Xaeon says
What money is there to be made by evolution being a fact? The money is understanding HOW evolution works and being able to take advantage of this (which, by the way, we already do with the domestication of animals).
Please tell my you're not serious? The more discoveries you make the more funding you get. It's not a difficult concept.
But once again you take a quote of mine out of context. We were refering to Nat. Geo., Smithsonian and other mainstream "publications" you switched my wording to "science" and for some reason I went with that. Maybe I was trying to communicate with you on your level?
It is this sentence here that shows your misunderstandings the best. Evolution is what happens. Natural selection is HOW it happens. Evolution, as I've said so many times, is an observed fact. Science isn't in some kind of struggle with this as you are making out. Science knows this is a fact and that is that:
Believe it or not I agree.
The problem for me is that I assumed fact meant absolute certainty. It doesn't. The whole time I should have said evolution is not an absolute cerntainty.
Mainstream science isn't touting it as it is pretty much considered done and dusted. You don't see "Turns out, Einstein was right" articles popping up, because we've been there, done that, and we know it's true.
Whoa...this is so wrong on so many levels.
You don't see "Turns out, Einstein was right" articles popping up, because we've been there, done that, and we know it's true
Einstein’s “Blunder” is Right, After All; Journal of Young Scientist © 2007 Falishia Sloan, Science Journalist
We are constantly bombarded with Einstein was right articles. I entered exactly that phrase and got 507,000 hits.
Mainstream science isn't touting it as it is pretty much considered done and dusted
Are you serious? Look at the debate here. Mainstream science can make a lot of money on this subject and has made a lot of money on this subject. You don't think they would make a big deal about a definitive evolution 'smoking gun'?
Just look at how much attention is paid to the numerous specimens vying for 'missing link' status since Lucy's discovery. I may not be the most science savvy guy but I do know what makes money and this subject is one of the few, in science, that captures the passion of the layman. This is a 'crossover' over subject if there ever was one.
I'll say it again. Evolution is fact. The process by which it takes place (natural selection) is what may be up for debate.
You have it backwards. Natural selection is a fact...your pepper moth article proves that. Hell the current size of an NFL lineman probably proves that. The theory of Evolution is not a fact.
"I would also think that a lot of other scientist would agree with me too."
Wrong. Find a scientist who doesn't believe in evolution AND isn't affected by his decision due to his religious convictions. You won't find a single one.
Xaeon...don't mess with what I was saying...that's not nice. I stated earlier in this debate I believe in evolution.
I was referring to the pepper moth article. The article itself said scientist don't agree on a lot of the points the author was making in that article.
Made
I read the article what does that have to do with what I said?
No where in the wikipedia article does it say food grown without water. There is no such thing as organic food.
Or you could say all food is organic. Choices?
With so many adjectives why chose to call it call it 'organic' when the major growing medium is inorganic? You might as well call the Titanic unsinkable.
Made I hope I get more then just water for breakfast.
Peppered Moth is observational proof of genetic drift.
I'm not saying anyone is wrong or right.
I read the article and I don't see evolution taking place but I'm not a scientist. I would also think that a lot of other scientist would agree with me too.
It goes back to the smoking gun post I left earlier. None of the mainstream science is touting this...wikipedia puh-lease.
Shunted
I figured someone would bring this up. Mormans carry a Bible with them. They believe Christ is the son of God. They just don't have the same views of God that most traditional Christians have.
So what? Do they have to interperet everything the exact same way as everyone else? Is there no room for a little leeway?
Toe-may-toe...toe-ma-toe get over it.
I agree that generations apply to the species. I've been reading some of your examples from earlier posts.
I'm not enough of a scientist to be able to discern the subtleties pointed out in plants for instance. Is it truly a new species if it's a hybrid?
The thing I do know is that there is still enough disagreement amongst scientist that the smoking gun hasn't been found.
It could be a matter of promotion/ignorance but if the smoking gun had been found Nat. Geo. would have had blazing headlines. The Smithsonian, Scientific American any number of mainstream publications would be clamoring for definitive proof.
Think about it. Big headlines for life on Mars. Lucy. Hype sells and evolution is one of the biggest mysteries in science.
The article, from you, "Observed Instances of Speciation" doesn't come right out and say evolution has been proved. The scientist, Joseph Boxhorn, who wrote the article begins with all kinds of caveats.
That's wrong. You can only give the title "proof" to a mathmatical formula.
I just looked up proof in "The Merriam-Webster Dictionary" ©1997 and it didn't say anything about a 'mathematical formula'.
I believe in evolution but it is impossible to ever prove it now. Eventually we will be able to document the evolutionary processes of current species but until then it's a theory.
The key phrase in the theory of evolution is, "...over many generations..." it's barely been many generations since it was even proposed.
As an example...Einstein said light could bend. The majority of physicist in the world showed calculation after calculation explaining exactly why light could, would and should bend but until the proper instruments were invented and the proper situation occured it couldn't be proven. We now know it's a fact.
All the lab work, DNA results and field studies mean nothing until the process, taking 'many generations' is documented.
I don't think the United States should have armies in 130 nations around the world.
I would tend to agree. Let other countries take care of themselves.
Can you imagine if China had troops stationed in Mexico, or Canada? America would flip the hell out.
Only because those countries are our allies.
I believe Russia has/had troops in Cuba. I don't see anyone flipping out.
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
Apparently I was too much for the dude. Never countered anything I wrote but decided to hide instead.
I guess there's nothing like a point by point dismantling.
Kid
Global warming is most likely a normal cycle; which may or may not be exacerbated by humans. It's consequences may or may not be as bad as most experts would lead us to believe.
That being said...there is no way you can call it a "myth". It's very real. All sides pro and con agree on this.
