raven_gaurd0

We were back to pre-Great Depression levels by 1939, before the war started. The war also put the US into a lot of debt (over 100% of GDP) and almost halted consumer spending and raised savings rates to record highs (high savings aren't neccessarily bad, just listing what happened). War is bad for an economy; end of story.

The New Deal by FDR was done in an age directly after WWI and right before WWII. War does wonders for a countries economy, but the Iraq 'War' has never escalated above that of a spat-like military engagement. You bring casualties up to 20 million, like the Kremlin suffered, and then you can talk war-scale. Besides, the world has changed infinitely. This 'New New Deal' is hardly what our economy needs, I think.

Ha! Don't worry, friend. Wikipedia is a great source, if only for the fact that all of it's pages are generally derivatives of essays and government research. And I'd love to work in a lab. I've always been a very science-y guy. I mean, I prefer bigger stuff, not just cancer and microbiology, but hell, all that stuff is interesting! Everything is so complex and beautiful, way down when you get to it.

No, I will not calm down. I recognize the flaws in the mortal aspects of the Church, but this isn't attacking the branches or the little guidelines of the religion, it's attacking the direct heart of it. To rectify even one of these 'mistakes' that this alleged piece of satire points out would disestablish all known religion for ever and for always.

You don't know how refreshing it is to hear this from a pro-life advocate. You just made my day. :) *Shrugs.* I prefer abstinence myself, but I recognize it's an unplausible goal in today's society. People are going to experiment; not everybody is a die-hard believer in the sacredness of marriage and then sex. For the rest of us, then, we need something more than just 'NO SEX 4 U.' That's a stupid course of action.

Why do you detest the stimulus and think it will fail? [/hide] I detest it for the reasons in my initial post. That is has unnecessary spending in the middle of a recession which are used to further party agenda rather than help the economy, like the fuel-economic cars for government workers of Obama's administration. Yes, that's a good thing, but not now. And I think it will, in general, fail, because it's similar and even less effective than the less-expensive Bush bailout bill, which didn't do much to help the economy. If it's a good thing, it's a good thing now. Basically, the stimulus bill is part of fiscal policy which has been shown to be effective in keeping recessions from getting worse and usually helping bring the economy back into a period of expansion. Fiscal policy for a recession encompasses government spending (to offset the decline in private spending) and tax cuts to give people more money to spend and create jobs. When you say Bush bailout bill, do you mean TARP (the wallstreet bailout) or the tax return checks back in May of 2008? TARP's only been half spent and helped a little, but not enough and is not a stimulus plan. The tax rebates seemed to help a bit through August, but then the economy tanked again. Why do you detest the stimulus and think it will fail? well a. there is a lot of spending that is going to end up being wasteful b. I am worried about inflation Obviously without reading through the bill I cant be more specific, but I generally dont trust rushed law making There is inevitably some waste, but the hope is that the majority is actual helpful stimulus, which I think would be hard for it not to be. As for inflation, we were worried about deflation a month ago and the CPI (a decent indicator of inflation) is still negative, so inflation is unlikely to cause much harm. Inflation, I agree, is unlikely, as the debt isn't being printed in paper. It's all credit. I wonder how that all works, actually? I'm not an economist, of course. As for the Bush bailout, I meant both. The stimulus checks of 2008 didn't work because the people didn't spend it, and that's their fault for only spending it on paying off debts. As for TARP, there are plenty of 'bailout' pieces of the stimulus plan, such as sending money off to private corporations, as was illustrated on the Pie charts I sent. I don't think that A stimulus plan is bad; I think that this partisan, agenda-based stimulus bill is bad. Do you see where I'm coming from? I'd be all for a 3 trillion spending bill that sheer-jolted the economy through force-buying or something, but that's far too socialist for anybody but Russia's taste.

Me: "This appears to be written on Karl's letterhead." Mary: "Hank didn't have any paper." Me: "I have a hunch that if we checked we'd find this is Karl's handwriting." John: "Of course, Hank dictated it." Me: "I thought you said no one gets to see Hank?" Mary: "Not now, but years ago He would talk to some people." Me: "I thought you said He was a philanthropist. What sort of philanthropist kicks the snot out of people just because they're different?" Mary: "It's what Hank wants, and Hank's always right." Me: "How do you figure that?" Mary: "Item 7 says 'Everything Hank says is right.' That's good enough for me!" Me: "Maybe your friend Karl just made the whole thing up." John: "No way! Item 5 says 'Hank dictated this list himself.' Besides, item 2 says 'Use alcohol in moderation,' Item 4 says 'Eat right,' and item 8 says 'Wash your hands after going to the bathroom.' Everyone knows those things are right, so the rest must be true, too." Me: "But 9 says 'Don't use alcohol.' which doesn't quite go with item 2, and 6 says 'The moon is made of green cheese,' which is just plain wrong." John: "There's no contradiction between 9 and 2, 9 just clarifies 2. As far as 6 goes, you've never been to the moon, so you can't say for sure." Me: "Scientists have pretty firmly established that the moon is made of rock..." Mary: "But they don't know if the rock came from the Earth, or from out of space, so it could just as easily be green cheese." Me: "I'm not really an expert, but I think the theory that the Moon was somehow 'captured' by the Earth has been discounted*. Besides, not knowing where the rock came from doesn't make it cheese." John: "Ha! You just admitted that scientists make mistakes, but we know Hank is always right!" Me: "We do?" Mary: "Of course we do, Item 7 says so." Me: "You're saying Hank's always right because the list says so, the list is right because Hank dictated it, and we know that Hank dictated it because the list says so. That's circular logic, no different than saying 'Hank's right because He says He's right.'" John: "Now you're getting it! It's so rewarding to see someone come around to Hank's way of thinking." Me: "But...oh, never mind. What's the deal with wieners?" Mary: She blushes. John: "Wieners, in buns, no condiments. It's Hank's way. Anything else is wrong." Me: "What if I don't have a bun?" John: "No bun, no wiener. A wiener without a bun is wrong." Me: "No relish? No Mustard?" Mary: She looks positively stricken. John: He's shouting. "There's no need for such language! Condiments of any kind are wrong!" Me: "So a big pile of sauerkraut with some wieners chopped up in it would be out of the question?" Mary: Sticks her fingers in her ears."I am not listening to this. La la la, la la, la la la." John: "That's disgusting. Only some sort of evil deviant would eat that..." Me: "It's good! I eat it all the time." Mary: She faints. John: He catches Mary. "Well, if I'd known you were one of those I wouldn't have wasted my time. When Hank kicks the snot out of you I'll be there, counting my money and laughing. I'll kiss Hank's butt for you, you bunless cut-wienered kraut-eater." With this, John dragged Mary to their waiting car, and sped off. I find that entire dialogue rather offensive. No, we do not 'Kiss His butt' nor do we have contradictory Commandments. Nor is it written anywhere in religious scripture that God deems that you must kill other people unlike you; not even the Qu'ran dictates that. I shall not sink to your level and insult you, but I find it hard when this is such a blatant and obvious assault on us 'religious types'. Any good Christian knows that laughing at atheists or 'non-believers' for their choices is NOT Christian. Humans are just as likely to succumb to sin and immorality as ever. We're not God. This, however, makes all religious people seem like arrogant, crumby bastards. I've never heard worse ignorant crap, not even listening to Rush Limbaugh. Not even reading Mein Kaumpf. Bite thin tongue, hypocrite. 'Live and let live' has always been the motto of most the atheists I've ever met, and then they turn around and attack us and insist that we're being bigots because of Who we believe in, then they come up with gross mis-analogies that don't fit at all. Well, I'm getting sick of it.

Why do you detest the stimulus and think it will fail? I detest it for the reasons in my initial post. That is has unnecessary spending in the middle of a recession which are used to further party agenda rather than help the economy, like the fuel-economic cars for government workers of Obama's administration. Yes, that's a good thing, but not now. And I think it will, in general, fail, because it's similar and even less effective than the less-expensive Bush bailout bill, which didn't do much to help the economy.

I've addressed many of the problems. I feel that the sentience of the zygote is a largest point you have; however, I have taken into full effect and mind the effect that the rearing of the child will have on society. I believe that if you read back a few pages, you may find arguments addressing this issue - on both sides. I, personally, believe that we need not to kill the children, but rather encourage abstinence and SAFE SEX. Condoms, birth control, period regulation, period watch, everything you can to make sure that you don't become pregnant. When a woman gets pregnant, it's her choice, and while the sentience of the zygote is up for debate, it is definitively a thriving organism in and of it's own right. Since it was the woman's choice to have unsafe sex and to have a zygote, it is morally wrong to kill the child. Sure, there are social repercussions for the child, but the moral repercussions of ending the life is worse. At least there is flexibility, choice, and help outside of the womb for the child; there is only one source of help inside the womb: the mother. And she, I feel, has an obligation to keep the her choice.

that was from the hannity interview right? Read the context, he says something to the effect of "if Obama is going to pursue turning america into a socialist country I want him to fail" Believe me, I dont like Rush limbaugh at all, he is an idiot, but he didnt say he wants obama to fail. He said he wants a socialist policy for america to fail, which Im sure many of you disagree with but the key thing is he said he wants policy to fail not the overall presidency. He wants the stimulus plan to fail. Rush Limbaugh doesn't know what socialism is. He wants it to fail because he knows full well that if it works then everything he's been talking about since Clinton will be one big lie (even though most people know it is already). He just wants to prove a political point, nothing more. This has nothing to do with "socialism" The "S" and the "N" words (socialism and nationalization) are like the boogie man to uneducated people that are still stuck in the Cold War. Now I'm not saying if you oppose the two that you're uneducated, I'm saying the uneducated doesn't know what socialism really is. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Rush Limbaugh ALWAYS does it, however. He never backs up his arguments with guests that know what they're talking about, it's just him blubbering. I agree many talking heads don't know much about economics, but that's why they read what economists say in order to talk about it. Rush just blabbers on about how "it's never worked" and, "this is such a waste of money, I hope it fails." This is still a murky and shallow amount of economists on their shows, but it's not hard to find even conservative economists supporting a stimulus: http://mediamatters.org/items/200902110027 Rush Limbaugh hoping the stimulus FAILS certainly is pigheaded, if that's the fact. I, while I do detest the stimulus, do not hope it fails. I hope it succeeds, but I highly doubt that it will. Rush Limbaugh is a whole different animal, and I very highly dislike him as much as I dislike O'Reilly, but please, I hardly think that this all over a political point.

You don't get it, do you? This isn't about getting married - this is about having sex when you're 13. Keep the un-provoked religious attacks out of this. P.S. I assume you meant the second part in sarcasm.

I liked my eugenics post, but only because I can't be bothered to be serious.

Heh. I think if you went through all the books you'd find plenty of stupid laws that nobody would care to enforce. Like, in Georgia, (at least, I believe it's Georgia) it is illegal to tie a giraffe to a telephone pole.

[/hide] While I applaud the effort you put into your post, I think there's one fatal flaw. It's not like these researchers wouldn't realise that our DNA could be affected, so I think they would have gone for a different route of action. The drug probably targets reverse transcriptase, which is only used to transcribe viral RNA into DNA. It's not used for any vital eukaryotic biological function, so tampering with it shouldn't hurt us. Just as a matter of interest, the reason why retroviruses like HIV mutate so much in the first place is because reverse transcriptase is a pretty error-prone enzyme. I'll do some research and report back later. Edit: From what I can tell, KP-1461 is a special kind of nucleotide/nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor, except it induces extra mutations and doesn't terminate replication. These kind of drugs work as analogs to proper nucleotides and serve to prevent proper replication via reverse transcriptase. This paper suggests that it doesn't get used by nuclear polymerases and passed toxicology/genotoxicity tests which would suggest it takes advantage of a unique affinity for reverse transcriptase. Here's the mechanism of action as the company explains it: I didn't know that the virus worked in such a fashion; I perceived that it merely accelerated and forced errors in RNA and DNA replication. So thank you for clarifying that and I now know that my initial concerns have been found groundless. As for me being just a teenager, I'm in college studying Marine Biology, so the cells therein, and while I did think it unlikely that the scientists would overlook the details, well...it's always possible. And no I didn't copy and paste that. Well, diffusion is relatively indifferent to what comes in and out; it is particular to a point, but if it's a random drug it may be admitted through simpler means of diffusion. The drugs, I was suggesting, would be able to float from the exploded cell to a healthy cell and then work it's DNA-messing with magic in your healthy cells. But, as Warrior pointed out, the drug doesn't do that, and instead attacks the reverse procedure. So my fears were groundless, as I was assuming the drug worked in a totally different way in the first place. SEMANTICS. Point is, Zimbu, you had some valid concerns; I think you're right in the sense that I did disregard many of the safeguard mechanisms that prevent DNA mutations, however, for most of your other bolded points, I did understand how the membrane functions and did take into mind all of it's functions (such as admittance to the cell) I just didn't point them out because I assumed one who was reading would know what the cell membrane did other than just be a wall. I guess I pointed out the obvious and kept the important obscure, eh? As for Laura...what does vegetarianism have to do with HIV? o.O Unless we're talking about population control and general welfare, in which case yes, you're right, all vegetarianism would be well enough, but you'd have to deal with billions of now virtually useless animals. An equilibrium is best, luv, but I won't make a definitive stance because I, quite frankly, wasn't around for the whole argument.

Not always. You are forgetting rape. Or is that a womens fault too? One of my friends was on the pill and still got pregnant. Is that her fault? Rape is the one single exception that I make in which case I believe that abortion is justified. I still dislike it, but I believe that the woman has a right to get an abortion in such a case. As for Blyaunte's argument, it goes back to what Scotishobbit quoted me on. I did not create Oprah Winfrey, therefore I have no obligation to them. I have made no choice to put Oprah Winfrey under my direct care, in which that if I did not care for her, she would die. A pregnant woman, however, has. Yes, Scotishobbit, rape is the exception, because it wasn't a choice, but you make a choice to get knocked up knowing the risks, then you have a baby which you are morally obliged because it is yours, to feed and protect at least until birth. As for the whole 'potential' argument, it's not 'unsure predictions of the future'. A fetus WILL develop into a human being, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Laws that are in effect but can't be enforced...Mmm, sounds like the Prohibition Act to me. I've seen over time that America likes to pass laws it really can't or won't enforce. Like the Platt Amendment of 1901.

The flaw of all talking heads/pundits is that they put their agenda/opinion before the facts. I think it's safe to say very few public figures are truly knowledgeable (or show it) of economics. Partly because some key points the majority of economists agree on aren't favorable in the public eye (like raising minimum wage raises unemployment). Of course, it is the dismal science. Irrelevent link on where economics got the name, the dismal science (for any interested folks): The Secret History of the Dismal Science. Part I. Economics, Religion and Race in the 19th Century People don't like listening to real economists, and I'm not going to pretend like I know half of what they say myself, despite having some, though overall lacking education in the field. As for public figures being 'knowledgeable' in general, I think that few have it, less show it. Honestly, if you get your news for America, FROM America, you're probably getting something that's biased. At least try to find a more mediated source, unlike Fox or Mr. Limbaugh. Try international views from people who are likely to have a neutral view of America - like France, England, or Germany. Don't get news of it from Israel or Russia. At least, that's what I do, but apparently people don't particularly like where my news comes from...by the response it warrants from these forums. -.-

To Range: Yes, I have taken both. I just prefer the nitty-gritty semantics offered by debate. As for my history, I see nothing wrong with it. As for Political Science...eh, too vague. To Quoi: Lighten up, people. We can get fired up over things, but I've never seen anybody here throw personal insults. At least, not any of the regulars. We all have our own opinions, it's our job to try to convince each other out of them, not to make the person feel bad. To Goddess: You make me sad. :( To Flyingjj: Those quantities of methane emission, when compared to the CO2 produced by vehicles, illustrate my point. Learn the metric system >:(

Staying on topic is Communist, Quoi Tu. Are you Communist!? Huh!? P.S. Why is your name 'Why you'? It's depressing. P.P.S. The irony of me calling you a Communist with a negative connotation is sickening.

Errr....yeah guys, I'd do away with HIV and AIDS in a heartbeat. It has it ups, yes, but it's downs are INFINITELY worse. INFINITELY A BUGILLION TIMES WORSE. Now that is looking outside the box.

Yeah, so you're telling me that 78% of the country must be Democrats, Liberals, or uneducated morons that stare at the television all day. Hmm. The same people that can elect the President aren't taken seriously when they judge him? It's not a "Bush-Bashing Trend". The guy was a horrible President. End of story. DUDE. Have you SEEN America!? YES. Yes, I would not be surprised if 78% of everybody were idiots. However, I believe his lowest was 27%, not 22%. Semantics, my friend! The point is, liberals had a go at Bush, which I participated in at times and didn't at others (I liked Bush for his moral policies, anti-abortion and all that good stuff) and now it's down to Obama, which is what this thread is about. Now, there's gonna be a lot of people bashing Obama, and you know what? Unless you want to look like a hypocritical [puncture], I suggest you keep the personal rebuttals on the down-low. EDIT: Maybe not, but there was nothing in the Constitution that said that we could. Slavery was never mentioned in the constitution as being justified. (We did have a clause about stealing land from the Indians, though. I think it's the same thing...they were a war-time state, so we stole their [cabbage]. That's life, mate.)

You just keep making a bigger fool out of yourself. http://www.democracynow.org/1999/2/18/w ... _internees Thousands of Japanese-Americans under no suspicion other than that they were Japanese compared to "a couple hundred" suspected terrorists. I'm still right. I said that the Supreme Court never apologized, and they mandated it in the first place. Get your talking point straight, please. It's still justified, if you believe in the Constitution, and if you don't then you better go fix it. EDIT: Quoi, in Bush's defense, we haven't been attacked by terrorist since 2001, while half the Western world has been bombed and raided up to it's eyeballs. (London, Berlin, and ESPECIALLY India and Israel.)

Bush was the worst public speaker I have ever witnessed, he got us into at least one unjustified war in Iraq (possibly two if you want to believe the 9/11 conspiracies, but for the sake of sanity, Afghanistan was justified), increased governmental spending, sent our country into trillions of dollars worth of debt, and the list goes on. What exactly did he "Get Done"?, because when only 22% of the American public believes you're doing a good job, you know something is wrong. Not necessarily. That just means that 78% of people THINK you're doing something wrong. Admittedly, they're probably right, and that's democracy for ya, but they could be wrong. That's speculation! 'cause you hate me. But I love you. EDIT: The Great Depression had 30 something% GDP decay a year and an unemployment rate of 25%. I don't quite think our current recession is nearly as bad.

Both after 9/11 and the bombing of Pearl Harbor this became completely justified and legal. There were no civil liberties to them. Not even the UN's list of Human Rights retain habeas corpus. Public safety? Invasion? Yeah our base 2,390 miles away in Hawaii gets bombed, the Japanese are still over 3,000 miles away from the mainland, yet American citizens are rounded up like animals and put into internment camps under no reasons other than their nationality. Did we go ahead and round up every Muslim or Middle Eastern person in America after 9/11? No, because it's inhumane and un-American to say that every Middle Eastern or Muslim citizen in America represents a terrorist's viewpoint, just as it was to claim that Japanese-American citizens were spies and wanted to take down America. EDIT: And to War_Junky_91, I agree with you, but raven_guard is still insisting that it was justified. That's what I'm trying to prove. You're arguing against the Supreme Court, friend. They mandated it in 1942 and they haven't apologized for it since. The reaction to the Japanese was an OVERreaction, but it was justified because it was defending the majority. THAT'S democracy, whether you like it or not. Same thing. We rounded up a couple hundred suspected terrorist because we were protecting the majority.

I want to protect those who have no protection. I think it's tragic if somebody dies in an underground abortion, but I mourn them not; they made the choice to go for it. The baby did not make a point to die. They had no choice. And yes, I shove my beliefs down peoples throats, you know why? Because you do it, and he does it, and EVERYBODY does it. It's called expressing yourself. A scraping of skin cells from the knee has no potential to be human. And Range, please don't insult me. I have done no ill to you. The baby did not have the choice to be put into that woman's womb. It just happened, through the womans fault. Similarly, if I ate somebody in tact, they did not have the choice to be put there, but they are there. Heavy duty fighting, by the fact that I believe I'm fighting over life and death. That's heavy, man.