Ambassadar

First I said it was arguably the best. I can back up my statement. I would like for you to give me a list of better Constitutions as well and they can't have been based off the US Constitution. Facts about the US Constitution. Since its creation some two hundred years ago, over one hundred countries around the world have used it as a model for their own. It is the oldest written constitution of its type in effect in the world. The US Constitution broke the mold of Old Europe. It was the foundational text that influenced most of the free societies of the world today. It is one of the most groundbreaking documents ever penned. I would put it up there with the Magna Carta. I mean come on... you are going to sit there and call it American ÃÆÃâÃâüber-attitude when over 100 countries have copied it in some form? Are you sure you aren't just being anti American? Have you even studied the American Constitution and it's impact on history?

And the only possible method to do this, is obviously with weapons. :-k This is a perfect example of why you need an armed population so guys like this cannot take over a perfectly good prosperous country and run it into the ground. http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/africa/04 ... topstories If all those people he stole lands from, had beaten, hurt or killed had been armed and the whole population had guns do you think he could get away with all of this for so long? He wouldn't last very long in the US... I can assure you of that. He couldn't just go into neighborhoods or towns and drag people away. People would band together and get their guns and fight back. You can say right now that the US wouldn't have a dictator and that the thought is just silly but the reason the 2nd amendment is there is can you guarantee that the US will have the same government in 300 years? Can you guarantee that there won't be some kind of horrible event where the citizens will need to defend themselves? Eventually the US government will fall and that is when guns will be needed by the citizens. Would you prefer to just be dominated by a dictator instead of fighting for your freedom? And someone hasn't read the US Constitution before... Nice of you to call the core principals of arguably the most effective Constitution in the history of the Earth something to vomit over.

What do you feel the biggest mistake you have made as an MP is?

I know you are but what am I? *Pee Wee Herman voice*

I just found out today that two friends of mine that went to VT for undergrad that are in optometry school with my girlfriend had a close friend murdered in the killing spree.

Because eventually every government falls and eventually every government gets corrupted. All you have to do is look at the history of the world. When governments get corrupted or fall then lots and lots of people die. Millions upon millions of people have been murdered throughout history by their own governments. The second amendment is there so when that day comes in the US even if it is 500 years from now the people can stand up for themselves and defend their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I have been wearing contacts for years. I remember the first week or two was so frustrating trying to put them in each day. Other than that they have been great. If I leave them in too much my eyes will get bloodshot but then again that is only when I am wearing them more than I should be. They were a lifesaver for high school sports.

I know a lot of people that wouldn't give up their guns that have been law abiding and responsible people their entire lives. Everyone keeps failing to see this point. If the people don't have guns and only the government has them then what is to stop the government if it decides to take more power than is rightfully granted to it by the people?

OM if people of other religions don't talk about their religions then naturally conversations will flow towards to the religions of people that are speaking up. If you want people to talk about Buddhism then you should start the dialogue flowing.

I would think it was sarcasm... I hope it was... I don't really see how someone could say that without it being a joke.

Shouldn't that be: Also, darkness is useful...ugly ladies. 8-) Your post was good about this Bubsa. I was laughing when I read it. My brain just interpreted it a slightly different way than yours before I had even read your response so I decided to share. As to darkness and the original poster I'm not sure. It's weird with me because sometimes in the same house with nothing being different one night I get creeped out by the dark and other nights it's no big deal at all and I could care less. If I was just scared of the dark then I would always be scared of the dark but that isn't the case. I don't get it...

I wasn't responding to you or anyone else. I was informing everyone of the reason the US has the second amendment. It was made for the precise reason of giving everyone even if they aren't in the military a gun in their house. It was made so that the government and the military wouldn't and couldn't have absolute control over the people in case they started to trample the rights of the people.

It is interesting to note that in the US when you go out in the country EVERYONE has multiple guns. The murder rate and violent crime rates are also next to nothing. When you go in the city the number of guns per person drops drastically and the violent crime and murder rates go way up. I know where I am from even though it is one of the ten most dangerous cities in the US according to the latest statistics pretty much all the violent crime and murder is in the ghettos.

The US wouldn't exist as we know it without free citizens having the right to bear arms because the revolution against Great Britain couldn't have happened in the first place without those guns. That is why we have the 2nd amendment. It is to protect the citizens against the government should the government one day become tyrannical and trample the rights of it's people.

Thanks Reb. I will be interested to hear what your teacher says...

Whew... ok so I have a lot of responses to my post to respond to... here goes... You are debating mating difficulties within a pre existing species where the different populations have the same number of chromosomes. I was addressing what happened when the first member of a species was created that has a different number of chromosomes than any other animal on Earth. Either way it is a finch. Same number of chromosomes so it is pointless to the discussion. As to your link I am not about to go through some website and try to disprove every single thing. This post was made for people to offer reasons why they have a problem with macro evolution. The burden is on people that believe in macro evolution to defend the specific issues brought up. Not for me to go write a book trying to disprove some website you link to. That being said I will go look at the site since you were nice enough to link it. I was talking about creating a new species that has a higher or lower number of chromosomes. For your point to be valid the males would have to be able to reproduce to create the Down Syndrome species. They can't so it is not a viable species so this is not a valid defense to this particular issue I brought up. And yet no Down Syndrome species of human... Science is based off observation. Throwing out an idea like that and saying "given enough time don't you think probably could have happened?" is not scientific. You are basing your beliefs on this off of faith. No theoretical hurdle except the fact it hasn't happened. What is all this "luck out" or "maybe theoretically it will happen" or "is it unlikely given enough time this could happen even though it has never been observed in anything resembling this scenario" talk coming from you guys? Science is about observing the universe around us, creating a theory to explain what we see, and then testing that theory to see if it is true. I feel like everyone is forgetting that last part. Give me some concrete proof on this issue. "Theoretically speaking" or "maybe" doesn't cut it as an acceptable defense. Show me a new species that was made from the offspring with different chromosomes. Everything you guys mention has a sterile male. I would say the inability to have a male that can breed with a female of a species is a significant hurdle. I would like to know what you are smoking to think that this isn't a hurdle. :P This is more "given enough time" or "theoretically speaking it should work" info from you. Show me proof.

Good point and thanks for saying that. I remember thinking I needed to double check that as I typed it and then I forgot to so good call on picking that up. I made a mistake. So until that little detail is overcome mules support the idea that macro evolution doesn't happen. Actually scientists have developed a pretty detailed time line of the order they say animals evolved so you had the problems I described in my above post happening on a broad scale with many animals at once in a restrained time frame. There is just no way... Alrighty. In Down syndrome there is extra genetic in the 21 chromosome. It usually results in mild to moderate [developmentally delayed]ation and is a factor in many negative diseases or afflictions to the person that has it. Additionally like mules males are sterile. Females have about a 50% chance of their child having Down syndrome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome Down sydrome... macro evolution in action? If you don't know then why did you try to answer it? All that makes your answer is conjecture.

I'll go with your answer on the first life since you were trying to focus on just the life to life evolving when you specified your post. As to the mule it does raise many concerns on the viability of macro evolution in my opinion. According to macro evolution at some point as lifeforms were advancing a new creature was born that had more chromosomes than any other creature alive. It would be that shining moment when the freak productive mutation had taken place and a new species had blossomed. Since it would have been the most advanced life on Earth how would it have mated when creatures as similar as a horse and donkey that do contain the same number of chromosomes couldn't mate? Several things would have to occur for the species to propagate. 1. It would have to be asexual. (This would rule out mammals and most other classes of animals from ever evolving past the lowest levels existing in that class) 2. Since that is the case the only other option would be they found a partner to mate with. If the animal was the first to make the leap to more chromosomes then a partner with the same number of chromosomes would have to be found to mate with because mating otherwise would be impossible. That means at the same time two freak mutations in opposite sexes would have to occur in the same species where they both jumped to having more chromosomes. The odds of that are insane since we don't even know if an animal can mutate to a higher chromosome level in the first place. Then add on to that that these two animals would have to find each other before one of them died. That is like saying of all the billions of rats around the world if two mutated those two rats would have to find their partner in their lifetime or that new mutation would be lost forever. The odds of two rats that may be on opposite sides of the planet finding each other are next to nothing. Add on the odds of the mutation happening in two animals at the same time. Those odds are waaaay smaller than the animals finding each other. Then add on that they have to be male and female... then add on that they have to be born within a very small timeframe of each other... Then add on that this would have to occur for every single time a species was made that couldn't reproduce with any other species... To me this scenario appears to be impossible. I just see no way that this is a realistic representation of how the animals on this Earth got here. I am looking forward to your response because this could be an interesting discussion.

I already answered this. I'm not going to go through it Pope by Pope. If there were any "Christian" leaders ever anywhere at any time that said to convert people at the end of a sword then they weren't Christians. That goes completely against what Jesus taught. Time for all your quotes now. Did you notice a recurring them of them. They were how non Muslims were supposed to be treated AFTER THEY WERE CONQUORED. How nice... Let's take a look at those restrictions of Dhimmi's in Muslim society.

*oops meant to post on another thread, deleted my post While I'm here though on the post I made last night what would you consider when life was first made? Wouldn't that be the ultimate achievement of macro-evolution? If it isn't the first step in evolution what is it? Also What about mules? Why can't they mate? They are obviously a stronger animal than a donkey or a horse in areas or else people wouldn't have mated them to create mules for so many years. It's also pretty tough to get much closer than a donkey and a horse while staying as two different species. Shouldn't they evolve so mules can reproduce eventually? Then again mules have been around for probably thousands of years so if they were going to be able to mate one day you would think it would happen by now...

Reasons I don't believe in Macroevolution. Actually I'm sleepy so I'll just list two quick reasons to get started for why I don't believe in it. 1. What made the first life? If I throw a bunch of chemicals into a pool of water and come back in a billion years they are still going to be just a bunch of chemicals. 2.Are you telling me this: Could turn into this if I sit around waiting long enough?

If any "Christian" leader advocates conversion at the point of a sword then no they aren't a real Christian. Now you are just playing word games. Can you be an athiest openly and have equal protection under the law? Is a woman's testimony equal to a man's? Do you have the right to arm yourself? Do you have the right to pick whatever job you wish to do? Can you vote? Do you have a right to trial by jury? I don't think these things are illusions. Sure we can play word games about fine points of the law but compare Finland to Afghanistan under the taliban and you tell me if you think you have more freedoms. I never said anything about trying to change everyone to Western Culture. All I said is I felt Western Culture was a superior culture. If someone wants to be another culture and it doesn't involve enslaving or killing anyone then go for it. Actually... Four years after the death of Mohammad this is what was happening...

If you want to say the US has bombed a few of the early conquests from the first Muslim Crusade (that lasted for centuries pretty much nonstop and began in 630) because they have been engaged in terrorism(Libya, Iran and Afghanistan), kidnapping(Iran), murder(All of them) and rape(Iraq) then I will agree. If he was declaring people to be murdered or convert then no he was not a Christian. Same goes for the inquisitors in Spain and whoever else you want to add. You completely ignored everything I said about all the freedoms and rights that were granted to people that have been oppressed for centuries by Western Culture. What about cultures where they would raid other villages to support their need for meat because they were cannibals? What about cultures that said murder all the Jews? What about cultures that thought the Chinese were dogs to be killed? What about cultures that think anyone not of their religion is a Kuffar and is scum? I am not advocating they all join some mega culture. I am just saying they need to change their culture in whatever way they want to get rid of the bad stuff like murdering people. You forgot one option.... or the FOUNDER of a religion leading his troops to conquer, murder, and extort everyone that wouldn't follow his brand new religion. Like I said before I don't support Christian leaders supporting wars in terms of anything to do with Christianity like "the Bible says to go convert these people or kill them." The reason is the Bible never says anything like that so if someone says something like that they are making it up and you know they aren't following Christ. They are distorting Christianity for their own whims. I do support the idea of the first Crusade. Islam had been conquering everyone and extorting money/converting/or killing them for the past 450 years prior to the first Crusade. They were already advancing up into Europe. Something had to be done or else everyone would have come under the yoke of Islamic power. The first crusade was a reactionary move to Islamic aggression. I'm glad to hear that. As individuals you will see Muslims condemn things but I saw very few leaders come out and condemn terrorist acts or the riots or other stuff. I guess I should clarify that is what I meant. Sorry if my original statement was misleading. What if it was Male Anglo-Saxon Christians doing these acts of terror instead of Americans in my example. Would you feel the need to search your grandmother or little sister at an airport like they might be a terrorist if it was only Male Anglo Saxon Christians perpetrating these crimes? To me they are one and the same because the second one started because of the broken peace treaty from the first one. When a country breaks a peace treaty that is an act of war. Hitler is the only other person I can think of in near history that so flagrantly violated a peace treaty. Do you think the world would have been a better place if England, France, the US, and Russia had enforced their treaty at that time when he first broke it? As to the last part I love reading about the Winter War. The Finns were awesome in that war and did an amazing job. *cheers Finland*

Why should people feel ashamed from being from a prosperous country? They can't help where they are from. They also can't help the fact that their ancestors fought for freedoms and worked their rears off to become prosperous. People should be proud of where they are from and proud that their parents grandparents and fellow citizens have done so much to make their country prosperous. I would love to see the people of the Sudan live in peace with each other and build their nation into a prosperous nation but I'm not going to go around disliking myself because they haven't done so yet.

You said they had been BOMBING the birth places of their religion for decades and then proceed to give examples of interventions that were NOT in the birthplace of Islam(Saudi Arabia) that DID NOT have any bombing prior to 1991 which IS NOT 20 years so it is NOT decades which means your statement IS wrong. According to that logic the US should be an owner of Iraq now and be able to make a legitimate claim in the future to why they should own the country and the oil. The Soviet Union should also claim to have a right to own Finland now since they controlled your country for a while. I mean how dare we say a certain people have a right to own a country if others have owned it at some point even if only momentarily in the grand scheme of things... I didn't say one religion should be it's rightful owner. All I said is one religion should NOT be it's rightful owner. Two of those religions were existing together peacefully before that third religion decided to militarily take over. If I invent a religion and then go take a city does that give me a right to it as well if I call it holy? Actually I did... I only defended the reasons for the first Crusade being declared. I admitted some of the Crusades were completely wrong and gave the Constantinople example. It is a superior culture. If it wasn't then why does everyone want to move to Western nations to get Western freedoms that were created from Western culture? Why is it always Western nations giving money to help out non-Western nations? Why are Western nations leading the world in science? Why are Western nations the ones that ended slavery, gave women the right to vote, gave women equal rights, gave black people equal rights, created Republics and Democracies, etc etc? Western culture produced all of those things and more, hence it is superior. I have read those and you will notice that it is in the Old Testement and is what God specifically told the Israelites to do at that moment to nations that were sacrificing their children to idols and other crazyness. Notice how it was not a overall command of always kill everyone that isn't Jewish. It was an order to attack a specific country to play out God's judgment on that country. You will also notice if you keep reading the Bible that when the Israelites turned away from God he allowed the exact same thing to happen to them and their whole nation would be taken off into slavery. Also notice in the Bible when an overall command of how to treat others is given then it says to treat people with love. It never says to go around converting people at the end of a sword. Christian extremists(by this I assume you mean anyone killing others to convert them or punish them for not being Christian) first of all aren't actually Christians. If they were they wouldn't be doing what they did. Second point is the foundational texts of Christianity condemn Christian extremism as wrong and last point is other Christians openly condemn their actions. Muslim extremists are praised by other Muslims and their foundational texts support their actions. Because of this then yes, they are in two different categories. If Americans started making militant comments about Finland saying we were going to destroy Finland if you don't become the 51st state and then some Americans that weren't in the military killed over 3,000 Finnish people and then other Americans tried to do stuff in the same way the first Americans killed all those people did and Americans back in the USA cheered when your people died and didn't condemn it and called for the deaths of more of your people wouldn't you have a problem with America and Americans? Would you feel the need to search French people when it was only America doing all of this? Would you feel the need to search Finnish grandmothers like they are some kind of suspect that is going to blow up a building? Would you pull little Finnish girls to the side and search them? That is what is happening here because no one has the guts to say that it is only Arab Muslims that are doing all this stuff. Can that change in the future? Yes. As of right now the majority by far conducting terrorism against the US, Great Britain, Spain, etc is Arab Muslims. Is there a reason to search Chinese or Australian or any other people at this point? No. If those people or grandmothers or little girls started blowing stuff up then I would say sure, go ahead and search them but until that point comes it is stupid and pointless to do so. Iraq had broken the peace treaty from the Gulf War over and over and over. They had fired on US planes patrolling the zones established in that peace treaty repeatedly. When a peace treaty gets broken then that means the war continues. If you will remember Iraq started the Gulf War by invading a smaller country. The problem with all of this is Bush was an absolute idiot in the way he tried to drum up support for the war and completely missed the true reasons we should go to war in Iraq. To me it is all about upholding our peace treaties. Afghanistan pretty much did. When you openly support training terrorists in your country for their sole purpose of attacking another country then that is equivalent to declaring war on the second country. Like I said before Iraq was over their breaking our peace treaty which is an invitation to resume the war. On a side note you are exaggerating big time right here. Iraq as of 2006 had a population of 26,783,383. The US at the same time had a population of 298,444,215. That's only about 11 times bigger which means you are off by about 450%. If you were talking about land area then 9,161,923 sq KM for the US and 432,162 SQ KM for Iraq which means the US is 21 times larger. You were only off 240% this time. :P