HeyYou

Try disabling SkyUI.

When has terrorism ever achieved its goal?

The odds of us being the *only* intelligent life in the Universe (with a capital U) are vanishingly small. Sure, the odds of life developing are pretty tiny, but, when you consider there are BILLIONS of worlds just within our galaxy alone that could support intelligent life (as we know it), denying the possibility is moronic. Why haven't we seen any evidence of such? Well, some argue that we already have...... various drawings on central american murals and such, depict would could possibly be space craft, with human shaped occupants. Have they actually been here? Don't know..... Recently? Probably not. We are not advanced enough to attract any unwanted attention yet, (unless some slavers happen to come by...... but, that would imply an interstellar civilization.... that, I don't know about.) Can we travel to other stars? Better hope we figure out a means to, otherwise, the human race is doomed, and will be snuffed out when our sun goes Nova. If we don't kill ourselves off long before then.

Keep in mind, a rather significant percentage of the leadership here in the US, were also in place DURING the cold war. Personally, I don't see Putin as the Hitler-wannabe that some politicians are trying to paint him as. Considering that Crimea held a vote, and apparently, WANT the Russians there..... I don't see that we have an issue to take up any longer.

EU gets a lot of its various heating fuels from Russia. Trade sanctions would cause prices to go thru the roof. No big surprise they aren't in a hurry to do that.

Quicksaves..... hhmmm..... Do you have a hard save you can go back to, and test? See if you still get crashing issues?

Or Canada? Or Australia? Or the UK? "Socialised" medicine, or, single-payer, (what it really is) would actually be better for us. Your employer has no control over your health care, doesn't matter where you work. It would also dramatically reduce the cost of health care that the government is now paying. That IS what is going to end up happening anyway. All those 'subsidies' for health insurance are going to come from somewhere, instead of going into insurance companies pockets, I would rather see them paid directly to health care providers. Insurance companies add nothing to health care, except cost. There have been numerous offices (private practice) that have decided they are NOT going to accept ANY insurance at all. You pay for the services you get, when you get them. Guess what happened? Prices DROPPED. Considerably. Why? Because the doctors didn't have to have a bunch of staff whose SOLE purpose was to deal with insurance companies...... Ok, so, people being insured IS a good thing, given current circumstances..... but, what is going to happen here? Are the younger generation going to sign up for obamacare right away? Start paying those premiums? Or, will they skip it, and pay something to the tune of a 95 dollar penalty on their taxes, if they even FILE taxes for a year or three. We are going to have a significant increase in demand for health care, but, staffing for providers has been on the decline for some time now, and the trend is only going to continue. What happens when demand increases, and supply decreases? If you guessed "prices go up", you win a prize. So, insurance policy pricing will also increase. Are the subsidies going to increase?? Nope. The ACA was a bad plan. They are addressing the WRONG problem. But then, its our government. I shouldn't be surprised.

With this type of attitude, makes one wonder why internationally America is falling behind in science and math. You can look at some places in Asia where as children are expected to learn English, Mandarin, Cantonese, and understand the Hangul alphabet as well as kanji, all before they are even out of primary school. There have been studies done where children learn their native language better when taught multi-languages at the same time. Students who have a better understanding of their native language will excel in other areas of education such as math, science, social studies, and history. If we are not willing to open our minds to how other countries are teaching their children across the world and take too much pride in being a country where as it being know to natively use the "Universal language of the world", our country will probably just keep falling behind farther as the rest of the world excels. This is what I meant when saying in order for America to keep up with the rest of the world our nation should encourage the use of multi-languages and probably throw aside this paradigm of English being the Universal language of the world. Science and Math have nothing to do with learning another language, and if anything making kids learn another language just pushes math and science further down the curriculum. They pack in as much learning as they can in school for kids, throwing more in there isn't helping the kids. http://www.multilingualchildren.org/getting_started/myths.html You seem to be misunderstanding why learning another language is helpful when being taught other subjects. If a child has a better understanding of their native language, they tend to be more receptive to what is being taught when a lecture is being given. Also Reading text in books a child will be able to absorb information more effectively if they have a clearer understanding to what they are actually reading. Teaching another language is actually being used as a tool for the sole purpose of understanding their own native language better. Which is why a student who has a better understanding of their native language will excel in other areas of education such as math, science, social studies, and history. When children are taught multi-languages at a young age they tend to have a better understanding of their native language more than a child who is only taught one language. Sadly the best time to start teaching a child more than one language is way before they even attend primary school. I can find research on this going as far back as 1962. Makes you seriously wonder WHY this hasn't been implemented.

No, I didn't use a CBO report to argue that healt care workers would be more in demand. I used economic laws. You just changed the conditions on your premise. You went from "low income people", to "people in low income jobs". Most low-income jobs around here don't even offer health care. They are also mostly part-time, which relieves the employers of the onus of providing insurance. The CBO is a government institution. From what I have seen of our government, they have serious difficulties operating within the confines of the truth. That doesn't apply to just one party, that applies to ALL OF THEM. It isn't in the CBO's best interests (or the governments, at this point) to actually tell us what the REAL effects of the ACA will be. Mainly because they themselves don't have a clue. Their 'predictions' of what the future holds on various government programs, (especially the financial aspects) have ALWAYS been WRONG. Not once have they accurately predicted the final costs of some government mandate. They consistently underestimate the costs, and negative effects. They are almost as reliable as Punxsutawny Phil with his weather predictions.

One of the religious rights major arguments against birth control, (aside from the religious aspects) is that it potentially promotes promiscuity. After all, one of the main reasons the younger set DON'T indulge, is the possible consequences. (getting pregnant) Remove that consequence, and you remove a fair bit of motivation to refrain. Sure, there are indeed beneficial uses for controlling cycles, etc, but, that seems to be a secondary concern. (to them)

Your logic is flawed. "Lower Income" people aren't going to quit their job, just because they don't need it for the health insurance any more. And those folks leaving the workforce is NOT creating jobs. There is still the same number of jobs, just one less person in the workforce. I am sorry, your justification here falls flat. The money for that health care needs to come from somewhere. If not the people being covered, then it will be from government subsidies. At least if the person is working, they are paying some taxes, if they quit, then the government foots the full bill. How is that in any way "good for the economy"? Also, lets look at the source for this report. The "Congressional" budget office. Do you REALLY think that these folks would actually TELL US that the ACA was going to cost us jobs, slow economic growth, drive up health care costs? Etc??? If you think they would, then you are far to trusting. Our governments biggest business is lying to us, to convince us that they are actually 'helping' us.... when in reality, they are ONLY helping themselves, and their major campaign contributors.

Sure those things can be a problem but I 've never heard of anyone dying from a limp dick , in fact it has never happened and at one time it was just an accepted thing socially speaking, that there were some men who were unable to engage in such activity and it was viewed just as one of those trials of life much like blindness or deafness . Yet in the case of womens health in regards to abortion there have been many deaths over the decades . For example The National Center for Health Statistics listed 235 deaths from abortion in 1965 , a number which they admitted would be an under reported number , this would have been prior to Roe v Wade . In 1970 when New York State allowed for abortions to be performed in state hospitals the mortality rate of women dropped by 50% in one year in that state . Yet some in the conservative/religious right spheres would ban abortions , even contraception itself at times while at the same time be perfectly willing to fund limp dick devices and research , wtf (scuse my language) . Does it not strike anyone as odd that there are those who out of one side of their mouths (to women) preach a ban abortions , stop family planning services , abstinance is best , wait til your married , basically a no sex theme , yet out of the other side (to men) its penile pumps and funding for sex enhancement drugs like Cialis or Viagro , a sex as much as possible theme . They keep telling me it has something to do with core values , but I think its really just confused values. So, are they promoting the gay agenda then? If women are supposed to refrain from sex, but, men are funded by taxpayer dollars to be promiscuous, who are they going to have sex WITH? :D

Both sides feel a need to diseminate their propaganda. Neither side feels any compunction about lieing. In fact, both sides seem quite incapable of speaking anything even remotely resembling the truth. They all put their assorted spin on things. Even when what they are saying is easily proven to be false. It isn't just a right wing/left wing thing. Its ALL of them. Even more so of late, when it seems that making sure that the current adminstration can't do ANYTHING that might possibly help the country.... Seems to be more important to discredit/obstruct the other side, than to get our country moving in the right direction again. I think the biggest problem there though is, the respective ideas of the 'right direction' are pretty much polar opposites. I don't see that changing any time soon.

Right. And we all know that these guys predictions are always accurate........ oh, wait, that's right, they are usually WRONG, and are basically just another propaganda wing of our government.

Quite frankly, english has been the national language since this country was founded, and attempting to cater to all the different languages that are spoken here is both expensive, and rather silly. I will grant, that currently, we don't HAVE a 'National Language', nothing was ever officially declared, ever. However, if we actually DID have one, the government could STOP printing standard forms in 37 different languages, and save a boatload of money. English IS pretty much the global language of business. I don't expect any other country to change their behaviors because of immigration, in fact, some countries are even now taking steps to REDUCE immigration, so that THEIR national identity doesn't get wiped out. The US should adopt the same policies. If you want to live here, learn the friggin language. Just as another example of the sillyness of our government.... A local school was FORCED to pick up a teacher for Russian language, for ONE student. (an adoptee from Russia.) That is his only job at the school.... and they pay him north of 50K per year, for ONE student. Now, if we weren't such pushovers, we would simply tell the PARENTS to get their child an english tutor, until such time as he could be main-streamed. Let THEM bear the cost of the child THEY brought to this country, not every taxpayer in that school district. Let the school spend the money where it will do more good. And NOT just for ONE student.

Erm, seems to me, there WASN'T any attack, as the shirts that would have caused it, were not allowed to be worn. The issue here is, was the school administration correct in banning shirts with an american flag on them, for ONE day.

I saw an article the other day that tried to convince folks that Jeb Bush is the ONLY viable republican candidate for '16...... I don't know that much about him, aside from being governor of Florida for a while. (most notably, when the presidential elections were hotly contested in that state, but, with little fanfare, it came out for G.W. Bush...... even though the whole thing stank of tampering.

He knew. There is just no paper trail proving he knew. Plausible Deniability.

It's a gamble. Simple as that. If they are in good health, then the odds are with them. Quite frankly, I understand her position. I severely dislike obamacare. I think it is the totally wrong way to address the problem, and I still have serious issues with the federal government REQUIREING me to purchase a product from a private company, most of whom, had a hand in writing the legislation....... That smells bad all the way around. What's really funny? Obamacare doesn't even affect me. My health care is taken care of by veterans benefits.

Apply this logic to a rape situation: "It wasn't specifically the dress that you were wearing, it was WHY you were wearing it that made you a target. Any other scenario it would just be another dress. But, if you flat out STATE that you are going to wear X dress to Y nightclub to arouse some segment of the population, what do you expect?" Just imagine how insane a police officer or judge would sound if they said something like that to a rape victim while dismissing their complaint and enacting a "protective" restriction on their clothing choices to prevent future rapes. I very clearly stated early in the thread that I understood and recognize the school's right to restrict the student's clothing choices. I am only questioning whether the way that the school handled it was right or wrong. If the school prohibited the depiction of MLK because it may provoke a gang of white supremacists and cause racial tension at the school they would be within their rights to do so, but they would be doing the wrong thing. Having the right to do something is not the same as doing the right thing. I have yet to meet a woman that gets dressed, thinking: "I want to wear something that will prompt men to rape me." They may want sex, but, they want it at THEIR convenience, and choice..... The folks wearing the t-shirts, if they had not mentioned WHY they were wearing them, they would have been just another t-shirt. The two situations are apples and railroad ties.

True, but you may as well add "Reform Campaign Finance" to the list of stuff that congress will never allow. Why would they want to limit their ability to profit personally from their office? As long as they can keep the people occupied by putting on a big show of arguing about whatever else is happening in congress the Republicans and Democrats will be united in their support of the campaign finance gravy train. And once again, Exactly. :D It will never happen, as the only folks that CAN change it, are also the very same folks that profit the most from it. We are doomed. Doomed I say. :)

It wasn't specifically the flag they were wearing, it was WHY they were wearing it that would make them targets. Any other day of the week, it would be just another shirt. But, if you flat out STATE that you are going to wear X shirt on Y day, to piss off some segment of the population, well, what do you expect?

These are all good ideas, but most of them would never have any hope of being be implemented. Here is why: Eliminate our standing army and cut future defense spending by 3/4 Cut the corporate tax rate by 1/2 for companies that maintain more factories on the US mainland than offshore Cut foreign spending by 3/4 Eliminate most of the bureaucracy surrounding medicare and medicaid and get the paperwork required for hospitals down to a single sheet in order to help them cut costs of healthcare Place a cap on interest that can be accrued from loans to 5% End the federal reserve, place the responsibility and accountability of printing capital back to the US Congress No more interest on student loans Deflate the artificial price of university education ....would all be lobbied out of existence by the companies that would stand to lose if these measures were implemented. Congress will not act in the interests of the US public if doing so would upset their corporate financial backers or interrupt the support that they receive from them. And this is EACTLY why we need some serious campaign finance reform.

I don't believe EITHER side, or their version of the 'story'. At first, it was reported that Bette didn't even exist. Then they came up with her. Guess she wasn't what they hoped she would be, Kinda like Sarah Palin.

I would point out, that we live in the United States. That school was in the United States. So, why do we celebrate another countrys holiday in any event? Does Mexico celebrate on the fourth of july?