magekillr

The problem is that immigration in the United States is broken. The feds have proven themselves unable (or unwilling) to control illegal immigration as is their job through ICE, so Arizona took matters into its own hands. While it is not an ideal solution, it is not a bad one, either. As to taking peoples' freedom - just remember that those people broke the law under both the old and new definitions. Arizona is simply enforcing laws which already exist. Arizona "taking it into their own hands" is unconstitutional. Immigration is clearly a power outlined specifically for the Federal Government, not to mention that this law violates so many other amendments. How can you say it's "not a bad one"? This is going to increase the Prison Industrial Complex's power in this country. It's bad enough we have a MIC that will whine if we shave off $1 trillion over 10 years, we don't need another bloated industry stealing tax payer money for things that don't work and make problems worse. The PIC makes more criminals than it imprisons, it doesn't rectify problems in society. These immigration prisons especially are known houses of torture and rape. It's outright disgusting and definitely revealing of your character that you see this as "not a bad solution." It's not even a solution; some expect the problem to grow worse specifically because of the law, and it is expected to harm the economy of Arizona. Immigration to the US is broken, and it's not because of lax Federal enforcement of the border, it's lax enforcement over businesses who hire and exploit their slave labor; not to mention the length of time it takes to immigrate here legally, nor the hoops one has to jump through to make it so: [hide]http://reason.org/files/a87d1550853898a9b306ef458f116079.pdf [/hide]

There's only one aggressive person in the video, and it isn't the protesters. Agreed. I watched the first minute, and turned it off because it annoyed me. I'm pro-choice, not pro-shouting at women on the street in a rude manner. Someone should ask him what he's trying to accomplish, as converting two middle-aged ladies holding posters of Jesus won't do much, and vidding it on a crappy cell-phone just shows the internet how much of a jackass he is. Perhaps you should read the story behind it: http://goodmenproject.com/2010/10/23/confronting-life/ If you read the background, you'd know what it accomplished. I prefer PZ Myers' explanation:

Bump: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEFWDYB0rWo

Congressional report clears ACORN of wrongdoing — after group forced to disband ACORN did what, exactly? Voter fraud is when you vote more than once or something. Voter registration fraud, which happens with any organization that registers people, cannot result in anyone actually voting. So if you're trying to imply that because of ACORN that Obama got more votes than he should have, you might wanna relook at the definitions of the two words. The guy who brought them down not only was found to be a completely staged event where the videotape was massively edited, but he was found illegally wiretapping government offices in Arkansas and tried to rape a CNN reporter on a boat. Meanwhile, voter registration is down at an all time low. Do you know why that is? It's because ACORN doesn't exist anymore. Thanks! The GOP went after ACORN because even though they register anyone, they focus on the poor and downtrodden, and those people tend to vote Democratic. Need more lessons, bonkers? Are you going to bring up the Scary Black Panthers?

Well that's the first time I've heard that :? I hope you're joking. (at the Bush not elected bit, not after that) It was not just a minor difference of legal opinion. It was corruption, plain and simple. The court, as I stated earlier, had no business making a decision in the first place. If after a recount of the votes there was still no clear winner, then the election goes to the House of Representatives with one state casting one vote each, just as the Constitution prescribes. There was never a full recount because the SCOTUS stepped in and said there was no need for one. Justice Souter almost resigned over it because it was so bad: It was clear from follow-up journalism that if the vote had been completely counted in Miami-Dade that Gore would have won in spite of the votes lost with the Palm Beach County butterfly ballot. The difference between winning and losing in Florida was a mere 537 votes. And I think that the GOP operatives knew this at the time, which is why they staged the "Brooks Brothers riot" at the Miami-Dade board of elections. And why they were so insistent that the vote not be recounted completely. Back to the topic now that the politics/history lesson is over.

Uh, who told you that? Judges aren't "supposed" to do anything. There's no actual "job" explicitly stated in the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison established that the Supreme Court -- and effectively every court dealing with Constitutional law -- has the right of judicial review, which as you should know is defined as the doctrine in democratic theory under which legislative and executive action is subject to invalidation by the judiciary. Was Brown v. Board of Education properly decided? Loving v. Virginia? What about Plessy v. Ferguson? Dred Scott? All of these cases either "upheld" the law, or "interpreted" the law. As you can see from the historical evidence, all cases of "upholding" certain laws are viewed from an historical analysis as "wrongly" decided, such as Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott. And you'll notice that when one talks of judicial activism, these are the cases which are brought up. Are you complaining about judicial activism with respect to DC v. Heller? Gore v. Bush? Citizens United v. FEC? I'd argue that the latter is not interpreting the law but making [cabbage] up, but that DC v. Heller was interpreting the law although I believe it was wrongly decided. Gore v. Bush was just flat out top 5 wrongly decided decisions, especially because the Supreme Court had no business meddling in the first place. That was pure kangaroo court. And who is to say how you should interpret the law, and which way is correct? I don't view the Second Amendment the same way that Snipersas does, but I still don't see his interpretation as invalid. It's perfectly arguable and has merit, even if I disagree with the interpretation. That's what law is. It's fluid, it moves, it's interpreted. That won't happen, it will never happen. Judges are political actors just as much as any other politician, and people pretending that they're not is contributing to the problem. This is why Supreme Court nominees should face actual scrutiny about their positions; instead they skate around it, and usually are confirmed right away. I opposed Elena Kagan's nomination because I did not know anything about her view of the law, and she seems like she'd rule in favor of expanding executive power. So if the people voted that blacks are 3/5th of a person we should just accept that? It's in direct violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. We're a nation of laws, and the Constitution supersedes anything state-wide. Democracy has never been "alive" in the United States. I don't know why people try and put politicians onto some lofty pedestal, but if you think democracy at some point had some meaning in this country, then you're only fooling yourself, or are insanely naïve. Just look at the history of it all. Since the Gilded Age, when both a large and permanent federal bureaucracy and massive national corporations emerged, there has been a Washington “system.” In order to get [cabbage] done, you have to play ball. This is why Carter is, as the Simpsons said, History's Greatest Monster, and other presidents are worshiped; Carter didn't know how to play ball, all of his advisors and staff were novices, and they failed inside. Successful presidents like Lyndon Johnson soberly analyzed how “Washington” operated and made it work in their favor. LBJ had dirt on every single politician in Washington, and he used brute force and JFK's assassination to his favor. The most transformative president, FDR, eloquently bashed entrenched interests in the name of “the people,” while he and his advisers played those interests against one another for maximum legislative and electoral gain. He was not naïve enough to think he could uproot the system. FDR needed some of the most disgusting Southern Democrats who ran key committees to push through the signature bills of his New Deal. Social Security was a horrible compromised piece of legislation when it first came to the surface. Medicare was hardly a resemblance of its current face. Now these pieces of our state are cherished and loved by all, including, perhaps especially including, the Tea Partiers (they're mostly old, and a lot of them are on Medicare and collecting SS). The deals with big business don't really drive me nuts because I kind of take them as a given. I am always aware of the structural obstacles to progressive aims, so I am not surprised by the sausage-making and capitulation. When it works to create something positive, I am happy. When we give away the store and get nothing, that's when I get pissed off. I'd like to see the system changed so it isn't so rigged, but I think it's always been rigged. I judge Obama by what he can squeeze out of the lemon. I know that doesn't stack up to the whole Change You Can Believe In slogan, but I believe in it because he's the best, most-progressive minded president since at least Truman. I don't look a gift-horse in the mouth, especially when he is getting things done.

They don't change laws, they interpret the laws. In this case, DADT has absolutely no legal standing in the face of the Constitution. Same goes for DOMA. Same goes for gay marriage in general. However, what strikes me as hilarious about this sort of thing is that the people yelling about "activist judges" are also the ones who support repealing the 17th amendment. The 17th amendment took away the state legislatures' ability to appoint Senators and instead gave that power to the people. This was done because it took less money to buy a state legislature than it did to buy the Senator herself/himself. So for most of the country's history, Senators have never been elected, yet they wrote laws. Whenever "judicial activism" is ever brought up, it's always with regard to civil rights/liberties; segregation, privacy rights, etc. Voting on peoples' civil rights isn't something I've ever been a fan of ;)

So with your logic crack/meth/heroine etc. should be legalized and people should just be responsible? Yeah, but not yet. In the future that should be an end goal, or at the very least they should be decriminalized (that's probably the better route, actually). No, they shouldn't be banned. They're hospitalizing kids because it's such a small volume of liquid with high alcohol content and they're drinking too many of them in a short time. All anyone needs in a night is two, tops. I usually drink one as a pre-game in a one to two hour period.

Just to underscore the rapidity of the decline, as recently as 1999, the U.S. was ranked by the World Health Organization as 24th in life expectancy. More here: http://www.suite101.com/content/us-life-expectancy-slows-study-blames-sick-health-care-system-a295102 Oh, but that's not all. Here's some data from 2009: More here: U.S. Grapples with High Infant Mortality Medicaid Coverage for Births and Family Planning Services is Essential That's not all. Out of 20 "rich countries" measured by UNICEF, the U.S. ranks 19th in "child well-being." Out of 33 nations measured by the OECD, the U.S. ranks 27th for student math literacy and 22nd for student science literacy. In 2009, the World Economic Forum ranked 133 nations in terms of "soundness" of their banks, and the U.S. was ranked in 108th place, just behind Tanzania and just ahead of Venezuela. Keep cheer-leading, patriot conservatives, while every other country kicks our [bleep]ing ass in every rubric. Oh, right, we're number 1 in the military and war. Go us. We can't have any taxes increased to improve our social services. That would impede on our freedom.

NSFW: [hide] [/hide] It's Columbus Day and We're Still Screwing Over the Natives

He wasn't the first European to reach the Americas. The Vikings were here before him. He just brought the Americas to the rest of Europe's attention, where they would colonize and continue genocide and other crimes against humanity. Give up what ghost, Bonkers? I'm sorry you don't appreciate my liberal hippiness, but I've been here before you, and happen to enjoy it here every once in a while. Besides, plenty of others exhibit the same views as I do, yet your hostility is only reserved for me (tortillachp, for example, or Azvareth). Vulxai, I must have missed it. My apologies.

Lol back when I was in 8th grade, my Geography teacher, as an assignment, decided to make us write an essay on why we had no school due to Columbus Day...the next day, he said he didn't get one essay on Columbus Day, instead he got many essays on Native American Day, and how Columbus shouldn't be revered...in 8th grade this happened! I've been fighting the name ever since. Well in South Dakota, they recognize the holiday as "Native American Day." The Nation: Reconsider Columbus Day Christopher Columbus & His Crimes Against Humanity

I hereby declare this whole week the "Christopher Columbus was a [bleep]" holiday. Go forth! And whenever you start to hear "In 1492...", be prepared to interject with "...Christopher Columbus was a [bleep]." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=il5hwpdJMcg

What you're observing is what 50% of this country considers "Freedom." Welcome to 21st Century America, enjoy your stay.

Oh look, the free market people apparently aren't too happy about this, are they? You can't sell fire insurance but let people pay after the flames have begun. If you do, people will sign up after their houses catch on fire, rather than before. That's a bad business. Which is why we don't generally run firefighting as an insurance business (this, actually, was a weird case where a city's fire service sold protection in a rural area outside the city's limits). We run it as a collective good. People have to pay, and firefighters never let someone's house burn. It's ethically unreasonable not to accept the service charge at the scene, but that's a practically untenable solution to the problem; you cannot maintain a fire department if people are paying the full cost of their particular situation either. So it's either this or everybody pays equally. Pay into it, jerks. It's a stupid way to organize the system, but if you knew how your [cabbage]ty system worked and opted to be the [wagon] on your block hoping to pay up front, you're a bad citizen and a bad neighbor. Rubble is your harvest.

If you're building muscle you need 0.75 to 1 g of protein per pound of body weight. I rarely hit 200 grams per day, the average is 150. I weigh 160 pounds. In any case, that amount of protein isn't even manufactured, it's just how much I take in with my regular diet (because I eat a lot of beans).

[hide] Is there something wrong with copious amounts of pasta? Personally, I eat more of that than meat, I think... I never said nor implied it was wrong to eat pasta, just wondering what a vegetarian diet actually consists of. I have a vague idea of what a normal meal would look like, but I'm probably stereotyping. Hmm. Why would Vegetarians want to eat fake meat products anyway? Doesn't that defeat some of the purpose? Hmm My diet includes the following foods: Soy milk Egg substitute Vegetables (broccoli, tomatoes, green beans, carrots, etc) Beans (garbanzo, black, pinto, red kidney, lentils) Bread Pasta Rice Potatoes Protein Powder Fruit (mostly bananas) Olives and oils Tortillas Juices (OJ and Apple) Tofu Seitan Peanut Butter and assorted nuts And then you can mix and match these ingredients with different recipes. I eat 4,000-5,000 calories per day, 160-200 grams of protein, well over my required iron, calcium and vitamins, and my calories come from 65% Carbs, 25% Protein and 10% Fat. 4000 calories? Are you a body builder or a fatty? [/hide] There's pictures on the RL pictures area, but this one is from July when I went hiking in the mountains all day: [hide][/hide] I'm not a bodybuilder, but I do lift weights and I do workout. I lift three days a week (biceps/triceps Monday, legs/abs Wednesday, shoulders/chest/back Friday), workout 6 days a week. I need 3,000 a day just to live (assuming I didn't workout). I just got back from the gym, actually, and before I went I ate approximately 1/2 a pound of pasta (630 calories) at around 3:20, and when I left at 5:20 I felt like I was going to faint because of how hungry I was (I take the bus so I was only there for around an hour and 20 minutes). Got back at like 6:00 (went to the food store), and drank a 1,300 calorie protein shake. So that's 2,000 calories right there. If you eat small and often, your body will get so used to it that you'll build a strong metabolism and burn your calories properly rather than letting them sit.

Is there something wrong with copious amounts of pasta? Personally, I eat more of that than meat, I think... I never said nor implied it was wrong to eat pasta, just wondering what a vegetarian diet actually consists of. I have a vague idea of what a normal meal would look like, but I'm probably stereotyping. Hmm. Why would Vegetarians want to eat fake meat products anyway? Doesn't that defeat some of the purpose? Hmm My diet includes the following foods: Soy milk Egg substitute Vegetables (broccoli, tomatoes, green beans, carrots, etc) Beans (garbanzo, black, pinto, red kidney, lentils) Bread Pasta Rice Potatoes Protein Powder Fruit (mostly bananas) Olives and oils Tortillas Juices (OJ and Apple) Tofu Seitan Peanut Butter and assorted nuts And then you can mix and match these ingredients with different recipes. I eat 4,000-5,000 calories per day, 160-200 grams of protein, well over my required iron, calcium and vitamins, and my calories come from 65% Carbs, 25% Protein and 10% Fat.

PZ Myers

This is not a question, this can almost be seen as a statement. I say that because the answer you are looking for, is not the genuine answer. It's the answer you want to see, and in fact, it's opinion. So if I were to say why I thought so, no matter what I say, I will be wrong. Because you have a specific answer in mind, and nothing else can even be close to the truth according to you. And that is why I get so perplexed, Magekillr, when you ask these questions that not only have no answer to them, but have no question to them as well. Uh, what? It's a question to get you to think philosophically and ethically about it because most people seem to think "What kind of question is that? OF COURSE IT'S WRONG TO KILL A PERSON!!!" Have you ever thought about why this is the case? It's most certainly not a question rendered into a question by most universities, as these discussions take place all of the time. It's a serious question that others have different views on. Some think it's wrong because of religion, others -- as noted above -- believe it to be instinct, whereas others have other reasons. Of course it's an opinion. Who said otherwise? Some people believe that killing anything is wrong, including animals. Anything in philosophy and ethics cannot be proven, and is nothing more than opinion. Where did you ever get the rationale to believe otherwise?

Fantastic news. This means that New Labour has finally ended its disgusting reign and they can go on the path that they were on in years past. Hopefully they'll turn away from their Third Way neo-liberal stances on economics, tell America to f*** off sometimes when it comes to war, and return to the party that's skeptical of curbing civil liberties in the face of terrorism. Now if only the Democrats here across the pond could do the same...

Whatever. Just don't go shooting up the Discovery Channel Headquarters because of distorted views on life and morality. What makes my views on morality and life distorted? You've done nothing to back up that claim but with assertions. My views could be distorted, but you've yet to state why. Why would it be more moral to accept that all humans should die rather than preserving the species through the active killing of part of it? My way some live, your way all die. That's not to say that I believe that the reason killing of a fully sentient being is wrong is because we're trying to preserve our species, but that would be the view I'd take if it were what I believed. Some living would be preferable to all dying, and I can't see how it'd be more moral to give the entire species a death sentence due to some perverse view that human life is more special "just because." There would be a logistical problem of deciding who should live or die, to be sure, but we do that already in other ways, especially when it comes to people who belong to our own tribe. We value the lives of our American soldiers more than we do the innocent Afghans all of the time, and this is readily apparent with the use of our drones that actively kill innocent civilians to keep our own tribe from dying.

Instinct. Instinctually, we must preserve our species. Really? I'd like to see evidence for that claim, as for a species that's supposedly out for the preservation of our species, we're at war with one another an awful lot and don't seem to care about the impending effects that climate change will have (as there's a lot of evidence that severe climate change in the past almost made humans extinct, bringing numbers down to mere thousands). This also does not reflect on the implicit wrongness of killing. Or take Peter Singer: That's not a sufficient argument, sorry. If it were, however, it would only be moral to be actively pro-abortion due to insufficient resources on this planet to keep up with our consumption. In essence, preserving our species through killing large swaths of it, actively.

What makes killing a human wrong? What makes humans special?