1_man_army

I had a sneaking suspicion that this would end up on tip.it when I first read about it for some reason. Anyway I don't think his choice in music had any contributing effect on his crimes, from what I've read, this guy clearly had problems that should have been addresed. That being said, some people will exploit it in order to make the usual arguments (you know what I mean, it's 3:35 here and I can't think of the work I need right now).

I know what you mean Zierro but how often do you have furniture in the back of a car? Probably not often, which is why there isn't as much need to legislate. Plus you'll probably get a ticket for the chairs obstructing your view of the back window :thumbup: .

It's different for motorcyclists though, they aren't likely to hit another person if they crash. The most likely thing to damage somebody in a bike crash is another vehicle or the ground - that is why helmets are needed. The difference is that those items (and the vast majority of items that can be stored in a car) don't have the weight behind them to make them extremely hazardous - a person hitting you at speed (like in a crash scenario) has a lot of weight to hit you with (weight is linked to power - Power = weight/time I think).

It isn't just your safety you're putting at risk by not wearing a seat belt, if a passenger in the back doesn't wear one the can smash the the person sitting in front of them, this has the potential to kill somebody (edit - as Rainy_Day stated) . Also, it isn't exactly a big thing to ask, they aren't like straight jackets a seat belt. Plus if your car is submerged in water (lets just say you drove into a pond) then you're supposed to wait until you get to the bottom so the pressure equalises out so you can open the door easily. As for faulty seat belts, that should come up when your car is serviced, any sensible person would get a defective seat belt sorted.

Deflection is the skin for me, everything else is just to bright to look at for any length of time.

Introverted (I) 63.89% Extroverted (E) 36.11% Sensing (S) 65.63% Intuitive (N) 34.38% Feeling (F) 51.43% Thinking (T) 48.57% Perceiving (P) 54.29% Judging (J) 45.71% ISFP - "Artist". Interested in the fine arts. Expression primarily through action or art form. The senses are keener than in other types. 8.8% of total population.

I always hate new boards, not because they're terrible but because I get so used to doing things a certain way. Once I get used to things, I learn to love the forums though - I've been that way every time the forum has changed so far. Lmao, I only just figured how to change the skin from that ugly IP board skin...I can't believe it took me so long to figure out that it was at the bottom of the page.

dont you mean iran? No, Chile under Pinochet was supported by the US because it was a right wing dictatorship which would stop the spread of communism in Latin America. Then of course Chile along with other South American dictatorships launched Operation Condor (which is the killings/torture/repression referred to) with cooperation by the CIA. That being said, that has no relation to 9/11.

Yeah it was supposed to be off te record, I think they were preparing to do an interview with the press when he was asked about it. The ODB incident was hilarious though because he was trying to be polite about it and ended up talking nonsense/ "Wu Tang is for the children" :lol:

You could really take it the other way as well. While doing this will appeal to Muslim voters, it has the potential to alienate many other Americans because of how Islam is percieved by some. So it is, to me anyway, a strange mix of playing politics (trying to appeal for votes/public opinion) and public service (trying to ease the tensions among politicians). That being said, I suppose you can apply that to any act from any politician.

Is it just me, or does anyone else find that the way 'kid' is used on this forum makes people appear to be rather condescending? @Saruman: You're right just because you disagree with Obama doesn't make you a racist and the people who accuse you of it are just being daft. That being said, I don't think USA is totally over its issues with race but hopefully you're all on the right track (as a nation I mean). That being said, I can only comment as an outsider on that.

That was my first thought when I saw the thread title as well.

Of course there are numerous factors and there would definately be skew because of mitigating factors if two isolated states were looked at (as I stated). However, there is still a clear trend in the overall picture and the reason you take a bigger survey (in this case using all the states) is to diminish the effect of mitigating factors. On the issue of operant conditioning, I don't think it translates well when you apply it to murder. The fact that there are many murders that are crimes of passion or spur of the moment incidents suggests that in many cases there is no thought applied to the consequencess of many murders.

No but they can give you a general picture. If people argue that the death penalty is a deterant, then generally it would be fair to summise that the death penalty states would have lower murder rates as potential murders are detered because of the death penalty. However, that argument has no basis in reality as overall, the states which do not have the death penalty have lower murder rates. That general trend shows that the deterant argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Are you really arguing that the states where there is no death penalty have altered their stats to make an argument against capital punishment while the pro capital punishment have just been honest? Come on now be serious. You use this correlation/causation argument which would hold of we were just looking at one isolated death penalty state versus one isolated anti-death penalty state but it is clear that there is an overwhelming trend across the entire US that discredits your deterant argument. Your argument has no evidence to support it.

THIS is why Obama needed to do this. Too many Americans have all these [bleep] stereotypes about Muslims. The Muslims who flew into the World Trade Center in no way represent the beliefs of the majority of Muslims. Islam has turned into an evil religion in the eyes of Americans, and Obama is only trying to fix that. Yeah. I was always annoyed by the "Obama is a Muslim!" idiots during the election season. Even if he was a Muslim, what would be the problem? If he was a Muslim, he could be a member of Al Quaeda for all we know. If a Muslim terrorist or terrorist group gets a good position in the American government, it would extremely easy to plan attacks on this country. There are too many Muslims in the Middle East that want to kill Americans, because they believe that we stand for everything they don't. They hate us, they want to kill us, they call us 'infidels'. Oh ffs get a grip, do you think he would have had a chance of becoming President if he was a member of a terrorist group like Al Qaeda? I'm sure somebody among the world's press would have uncovered that little gem if he was. People like you who instantly connect all Muslims with terrorism are a big part of the problem, there are over 1 Billion Muslims in the world and a small minority are terrorists, just like a small minority of Christians, Hindus and Sihks are. Since Obama is a Christian he might be a member of Lambs of Christ or the Army of God.

America was also founded on the idea of religious freedom and the seperation of church and state. 9/11 was perpetrated by Muslims, the Oklahoma bombing were carried out by a Christian so what is your point?

:thumbup: Nice buy, I've got that one as well Anyway, I ordered:

Why do you guys care? There is a big taboo about Islam in America since 9/11 and the he seems to be trying to address that by celebrating the more positive apects of Islam. If you think for a second there isn't a taboo about Islam then just look back at the election campaign when certain elements in the Republican camp (although not McCain to his credit) tried to paint Obama as a Muslim because they felt it would cost him dearly. God forbid a President tries to heal rifts between people in a nation and tries to bring them together.

Do you think they would have done it if they knew someone was going to do it back to them? It would have made no difference. Think about how the murder rate is just as high in states with the death penalty.

Maybe he's gotten confused between his acting and real life, he might believe he can do that Power Ranger crap in real life :P . Anyway as the guy says himself, he's a walking target. Everyone will be desperate to smash him.

It isn't a case of "they say it so it's okay", it is a case of context. In the context of a white person saying it in reference to a black person has certain racial and historical connotations because of how the word has been used previously in that context - that is why it offensive to black people in that context. It's use within the black community towards each other has other connotations that bear little relevance to the word's original meaning. Incidently the use of the n-word within the black community is a contentious issue within it, many people find the word offensive in that context also so it isn't as simple as saying that "they" all say it.

Accountants, foreign bank accounts, etc. is what I meant with that phrase. Sorry, I missed the phrase completely, my bad.

For me, it depends what the sentence is for. Longer sentences for the most serious crimes (rape, murder etc) should have mandatory sentences in my opinion. However, for less serious crimes where shorter sentences are more likely (arbrarilly we'll say sentences < 5 years) there should be flexibility because it gives prisoners an incentive to not cause trouble and to behave in prison. In the case you mention, I would say a mandatory sentence would be applicable (although I couldn't really say how long a sentence would be necessary).

Is it just me or are your views ironically quite liberal? Regardless, I agree with you to a degree on drugs. Certain drugs can be used recreationally while allowing the user to continue to be a functioning member of society (ie. somebody who can work and pay tax). However, there are other drugs that leave the user incapable of holding down a job when abused in the long term. The former should be legally (but restricted) and the latter should still be illegal. I think prostitution should be legal as it allows the business to be monitored and controlled, prohibition has never worked - it only continues because it would be political suicide to legalise it. hawkxs - Taxation doesn't discourage people from getting wealthier. Even if you make enough to jump up a tax bracket you will still make more money (after tax) than you were getting after tax in the lower tax bracket. That is how the progressive tax system is designed to work. Also you fail to note that wealthier people tend to be able to employ tax accountants to exploit loopholes in the law so that they can avoid paying as much tax as they should.

That's one thing I'll applaud America for, soldiers not having to pay tax. The issue just came up this week in the UK when a soldier questioned Gordon Brown aabout why they have to pay tax. I have a feeling that he may get punished for it though just because it was so off the cuff (although the guy was right to do so in my opinion). ========================= ...and then he became the only person convicted of tax evasion to be sent to Alcatraz. The idea of the government during those times was that even if we can't convict you of your real crimes (murder, racketeering etc) we'll convict you on something smaller and give you a sentence befitting your major crimes. I like Capone's quote on taxes; Oh how wrong he was.