pianofrieak2

Holy wow. I can't believe how much my opinions have changed since two years ago. Hell no, I wouldn't die for my beliefs. What use is having a belief if I'm not alive to have it? Life is the only important thing. Woot! im with ya Mad. No need to die for something. It's all a matter of perspective. If you think that humans last forever and that life is just a wisp of vapor that vanishes into the wind compared to the eternal glory promised to us through Christ, then it is clear that you should die for your beliefs. We all die anyway, might as well go down fighting for something you believe in. Some beliefs are worth dying for. Life itself is worth dying for. Now that's an interesting thing to ponder.

Actually, I don't see why an evolutionist would say that sex is intended for anything BUT procreation. After all, if it doesn't help your race survive, it's not useful and gets eliminated from the gene pool. Unless of course you believe sex was "created" for something with multiple outcomes. But any creation has to have a creator. Yes, you're correct. A fetus could be classified as a parasite since it lives entirely off the mother. But why does that matter? If it's human, then it's human. I don't see why classifying it as a parasite in its earliest stages of development is any big deal. Like that kid said before me, if it's alive then it's a human. If it's a human, then it deserves to live. So basically that the fetus is more developed, right? That it can survive on its own, so it's more developed. Well, let me ask you this: One doesn't stop growing until one is usually around 20-25. They don't stop maturing their mind until they're about 40. So does that mean that a 40 year old has a better reason for living than a 5 year old? No. Man, lots of kids have postmodern ideas now. What is up with that? Do we teach that in our schools? Do you mean that your decision to abort your baby was right for you but is wrong for someone else in the exact same circumstances? Why is that?

Well, I got lost past the 6th dimension (I think) but I got 10, so that was good. Maybe I got 9 too, but I can't remember. Anyway, the super-string theory is quite interesting to think about. I like debating (discussing rather) theoretical physics, space-time, etc. Nice find, but I'm afraid it may be as useful as the expansion theory. Only time can tell!

I work at an SAT/ACT/PSAT prep course, and my job is to tell kids how to get into college. So, let me just make this quick. 1. Colleges used to look at who is the smartest kid (i.e. highest SAT), but they found that many of those kids are geniuses who work on nuclear physics but don't become that famous or rich (i.e. give back to the university). Thus, they look at other factors. 2. Other factors they look at is class rank, GPA, and EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES. 3. Extra activities are VERY important if you want to get into higher level colleges, especially in the northeast. But it's not the number of clubs that you're in. It's how involved you are in the few clubs you ARE in. That's the key. Get leadership positions somehow. StuCo? Get a position. Volunteer at a place? Then be recognized somehow, and then get a really flowerly recommendation letter. I cannot stress how much extra activities are worth to colleges. Not only do they help you get scholarships (leadership scholarships, for example), but they also raise your chances of getting in. Just do it!

Semi-peaceful. She was arrested at one point for violating some laws when she protested but it's generally peaceful. I don't have a problem with Sheehan, I just think she's silly. Her son, Casey, was just a member of the U.S. military. He served his tour in Iraq and after going once and believing in the cause, he volunteered for a second tour and that's when he was killed. He obviously believed in his cause, and I feel bad for him that his mother would have such little faith in Casey's beliefs and dishonor his valiant death. Oh well though. She's not my mom and she's not doing anything productive. Let her excersize her constitutional rights to protest and we can keep ignoring her. I agree with Ghost entirely. But I feel terrible for her son (if he could see her now). I do feel sorry for her, though, for I think that she's just doing it because she's "supposed" to, due to her publicity. We'll see. maybe it's just a way to get some extra money and fame?

Oy, I love reading your stuff. You're so insightful at times! I would have to say that much of that is from the Christian perspective but that's beside the point. I agree with Bubsa in thinking that the magical force behind the universe is real, but I think it is part of our inherent longing for heaven. To be one with the magical force behind the universe. C.S. Lewis mentioned it, and while I'm not at all an artist or anything of the sort, it's inspiring to hear of those who are. Anyone read Angels and Demons by Dan Brown? There's a great quote that's like 1-2 pages where the Camerlengo is talking to the press about the battle between science and religion. One part that stood out to me is this: Now I do not agree with much of Dan Brown, but he had some terrific insights into the battle between science and religion. Anyway, just a few of my thoughts on the matter.

Your analogy is a bit flawed. Here's a new one. The kid, Israel, hangs out in this park. He's not rich; actually, he looks just like the black kids. However, his family is different because his Dad had to work for his living. The other kids are dirt poor even though their Dads have billions of dollars for selling land they inherited. Now, three of them get together and say, "Hey, he's rich. Why's he so rich, that's stupid!" and start throwing rocks at him. Israel at first just tries to handle the situation by invoking the teacher and trying to build some pressure in his favor. The teacher agrees while the other teachers just kind of sit and watch, taking sides with whoever will benefit them the most. But as soon as Israel has been beaten up with rocks, gotten a few black eyes, and then one broken bone, he says enough is enough and goes and beats on the kids who hurt him so much. His teacher understands and tries to get other teachers to act in his favor, except that the other teachers don't care and just want to give some money and make it stop. Except it won't stop and nothing they do will help the situation out.

http://www.askaninja.com If you've seen pirates of the caribbean 2, then you HAVE to watch their take on it. It made me fall out of my chair, I was laughing so hard. What a great site...

OK, we'll start over. Let's begin at the beginning, shall we? Looking at the middle class, you see that they can do one of three things: 1. Give it (which is at 2%) 2. Spend it. (help the economy) 3. Save/Invest it (help the economy) The rich will always have enough money to do what they want. But the heavy hitters will also invest it or spend it, usually to make themselves richer. (which is investing in the economy). But when you tax the middle class and upper class, you are hurting the economy. Because they can't invest it and then help the economy out more. Besides, the government will ALWAYS overspend. The less money they have to overspend from, the better. Besides, that's not the President's fault anyway. That's Congress' fault. The president decides tax breaks which he gets from Congress (you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours kinda deal) and then the job is up to Congress to cut taxes. That's my whole point.

Spare me such awful ideas. Good call, Ghost. We invest so much money in schools, but everyone keeps complaining that they don't get enough. It's going to take much more than money to fix the problems, but the government never realizes that. What does it take to change hearts?

Ford builds its cars with technology from private companies, purchasing parts from private companies, and allowing private companies to do some parts of its business.

I understand that. But that's not the case. I realize I'm probably being really annoying, but I'm just curious about how it happened. And to show that I'm not a complete idiot. :) Man, such a great idea!!!

I was born there. :P South Carolina ftw! I love it there...Pretty hot, but still nice. Minnesota blows. :( I went there on vacation! It was the only place I got stung by a jelly fish and it hurt like crap. I still have a cup from there actually.

I'll let him answer this, I was asleep when it happened. :P I thought it was you and two of your girlfriends. Am I missing something here because that's what you said in your first post...

OK, you're going to have to correct me, but let me try to guess at what you're saying. 1. Public companies receive large portions of their income from stockholders. (I agree) 2. Public companies have to stay on top of technology in order to make money and hire people to make more cars (ford for example). 3. Therefore, they invest in private companies (usually) to advance their company's progress and maintain competition. How am I wrong?

Wow, that was AMAZING!! I wish I didn't miss it...oh well. That is such a good idea. How'd you think of that? And where'd you get 3500 sticky notes???

We are in the year 2006, not 1986. The income that you speak of now comes from the middle class instead of the upper class. Investment funds, the stock market, and various other systems of pooling money of shareholders together now account for over 80% of American businesses. Take mutual funds as an example. The people involved are: 1. Trustees - Upper class (RECEIVES money) 2. Managers - Upper class (RECEIVES money) 3. Shareholders - Middle class (GIVES money) Right now, we are taxing #3 instead of #1+2. Reaganomics is very outdated. I'm sorry, but your picture was just funny. Actually, it was ridiculous. Shall we take an example? You see, there's this really interesting thing about those in power: they want more power. Those with money want more money. How do you get more money? By investing it and then getting money back as a return. However, because banks give such low percentages back (2%), they often make new companies or invest in theirs to make it better. But wait! That means they're putting it back into the economy while they make more money! :o As a result, our economy is continually stimulated. Now don't get me wrong. I'm against taxing the middle class so much too. Actually, I'm very anti-taxes except to make our government function at the smallest degree possible. But saying that Reaganomics is outdated is a very contemporary but impractical view. If you follow your philosophy, then the government gets more money, decides to overspend again, and then there is less money being able to tax because the rich are losing it all. Prety soon you have a very large poor class and a small middle class (what the rich USED to be). Then there's REALLY nothing to get income from, especially in a widespread welfare system.

Yep, that's true. But what's wrong with Reaganomics? Tax cut after tax cut, coupled with increased government spending has left us with a large National Debt. I guess we can just never pay back the debt, and borrow more to pay for the interest on the debt. We don't need tax cuts for the rich, we need an increase in the minimum wage for the poor. The GOP tying them together is wrong, as is a lot of what congress does, but that is off topic. Tax cuts for the rich means that they have more money to spend which stimulates the economy resulting in more of the smaller taxes. I'm against taxing the rich out of existence because once they're gone, the economy starts dropping. Then we're really screwed since we've blown our main source of income while trying to increase income. (like removing the board from under your feet) I agree that we need an increase in the minimum wage. I think we should reward the hard workers, and many of those people are barely making it to survive. I'm also for lowering taxes on the rich because many (not all though) are hard workers. I'm just against those who don't work and don't try to get a job.

Yep, that's true. But what's wrong with Reaganomics?

Lol that really made me laugh! :D

With absolutely no intention of fun-making or anything else malicious, may I ask how old you are? Still 16, a few weeks from 17. It's not like I haven't had the chance - my last girlfriend and I were together for 15 months - but we chose not to. Let's just say I (and she) have rather different views on dating than most people do. =D> :thumbsup:

The Book of Revelations. See the Antichrist comes and tries to take control of the world but then Jesus comes in with Chris Tucker and sets things strait. I think it could be a pretty big hit, with appealing to the Christian Right and action movie fans. Chris Tucker? I thought it was Walker Texas Ranger! :P

Wow, you're so smart! You're correct again. But I can't think of any besides Buddhism that are like that...Satanism, maybe? Still, I would say that the high majority of them believe the Earth was created. It is only a handful that are the other way around.

Not true - I was told this by Batman. Ergo mine is equally well-founded. You are using circular reasoning therefore your position is not well-founded at all. The Batcave exists. Batman told me this. Well, I won't disagree with you because you're right. However, that was just in this particular instance. I have other proof for Christianity that was not brought up in this conversation. I'm not; if you had basic comprehension skills you'd realise I'm making fun of anyone who thinks the earth was constructed for them. Hmm...every religion and cult in the world. That's impressive.

That works the other way around though; you'd have to be omniscient or have been there to claim that there is a hell - other than that it's just hearsay. I could also say that the burden of proof was upon you as you're claiming something which is not true prima facie. Not quite. You see, I'm taking God's word for it. Since God is omniscient and cannot lie, I guess my position is much more well-founded than yours is. By the way, if you had done any research on the ocean, then you would understand why 2/3 of our world is made up of salt water. I don't see why you're trying to make fun of God for making the ocean...