magekillr

It was John Bolton. He's not with FOX, he just goes on there to offer "analysis." He used to be an ambassador to the UN with the Bush administration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_R._Bolton Yep, the US rep to the UN. He's also a chicken hawk. He dodged the Vietnam draft (which I have no problem with), but he is pro-war in every aspect of the word. He dreams about war with Iran and North Korea.

Maybe, but I doubt it. As stated above, this would have been a huge bargaining chip for Korea. My guess is that this was done for a few reasons: 1.) Obama's administration has been talking to Korea for a long time about it, and about their program. 2.) Kim Jong was able to show he still is in control of his country. 3.) Kim Jong recently had a stroke, and wanted to show he's still in "good enough health to rule the country." I think it might be a little bit of what you said, but if it was, it was a minor part. Obama is [cabbage]ting about saying they had nothing to do with it. Clinton wouldn't have gone over there if there wasn't already a deal in place; it would have made the admin look foolish. He sent Clinton over there and said they had nothing to do with it so they wouldn't be attacked about giving Korea legitimacy. And about FOX et al spinning it, too late: That's a Neo-Conservative for you. And it's exactly why Obama sent Clinton instead of going himself. These people aren't happy unless you have tanks and armies storming other countries' shores.

Doctors aren't as innocent as you claim: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04285.html I'm sure many abuse it, but the overwhelming majority do not. And that's not a reason to shut down reform. What don't you like about this bill? Speaking of shutting down reform, is this what you were hoping for if the process is "slowed down to talk it over?": Astroturfing is still running strong among opponents of reform. They're busing in people to purposefully disrupt townhall meetings. [bleep] Armey's crew of corporate astroturfers, so awesome. Here's a nice quote from the memo: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/upl ... onmemo.pdf They have no interest in reform, so they have nothing to lose. My only hope is that we start pushing through a more liberal bill rather than this watered down one. I doubt it, though. Max Baucus' coffers have been littered with insurance/hospital/pharma money.

Are you living under a rock? Jesus christ. Of course they insure more than the government, insurance companies have monopolies on certain states and regions. (some own 75-85% of the market in some states). Competition is especially hard nationally. Low costs to the consumer? Get real. Health care spending in 2004 per capita was around $5,200. In 2005 it was $6,000. In 2006 it was $7,000 and in 2007 it was $7,400. This is not normal, and this is NOT "low." This is an astronomical amount that if it's not taken care of NOW (not 4-8 years from now), the US will actually fall to the bankruptcy boogieman that libertarians have been warning about since 1913. This is our last chance at this. We've tried since 1945, we've been talking about it for 60 years. How many more years do you want to subject the American people to "pounding out details" with a nationalist party that's flat out not interested in reform and a center-right corporatist party with some left-wing elements? The longer this waits, the worse the problem gets, and the less of a chance there is for reform. If not now, it's not going to happen. If this bill fails, reform is over for a long time. No one after Obama will want to try at it again for another 15-20 years because it will be politically toxic. And by then, health care costs will have bankrupted this country beyond repair. I'm really tired of people using anecdotes to deliver their messages. Look, people abuse welfare. We know this. I'm getting awfully tired of the Ronald Reagan exaggerations of Cadillac-driving welfare queens, though. To same, people will probably abuse a national health care system just like they do in Britain, France et al. So what? Abuse happens, but it doesn't account for such a high percentage of problems that it's worth addressing above the actual need here: a national health care system. Are you going to tell people who go into the public school system that they're abusing it by not going to a private school if they can "afford" it? This goes for universities as well. What are your problems with this bill, specifically? All I keep seeing are general things like pork, loopholes, abuse, etc. I have my own problems with this bill: a. The public option and health exchange aren't robust enough. b. Not enough people have access to it right away when it's enacted (2013). Only an estimated 10-11 million people will have access to the public option by 2019. c. It continues the role of employers in health insurance for far too long. While its goal is to get people off of it, it does it far too slowly. Only 30 million people will be in the exchange by 2019. d. The protections given to the drug companies. For example, the 12 year patents, not allowing cheaper drugs to be imported from countries like Canada, it won't give Medicare the ability to directly negotiate prices with the drug companies. Those are really my 4 biggest problems with the bill. Oh, and that it's not single payer, of course. edit, here's a picture of how far split the parties are in their differences: They haven't been this split since the 19th century. Wanting "bipartisanship" between the GOP and the Dems is a worthless cause. There's enough bipartisanship between the left wing and the right wing of the Democratic Party. We already compromised enough by ceding single payer.

I rarely, if ever hear of people traveling out of the US to get medical treatment, unless it is to meet or be treated by a specialist. (My friend got knee surgery in Japan while he was there because it was a bit cheaper.) I hear quite often of people coming into the US for medical treatment. US does have the highest quality of Healthcare in the world, from what I have seen and from where I have traveled (Europe and Africa.) http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 052609.php http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/co ... ll/21/3/19 And a conservative bunks the argument that innovation would be hurt if we went to a single payer system: http://newledger.com/2009/07/how-medica ... n-mcardle/

Another coincidence? :roll: Sources: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090728/pl_ ... healthcare

I'll let Amanda Marcotte do the talking for me, as there's been a recent controversy over the drinking seen in the new Harry Potter: Hey, I dont have a degree in this subject, so what do I know? But it seems to me that if you tell kids that the movie made drinking seem fun, in hopes they think its not fun, theyre going to realize the first time they drink and it is fun that you lied to them. And theyll start to wonder what else you lied about. Im far from the only one who thinks the prohibition approach to drinking, especially for the college-aged set, is an epic failure. People who are closest to the subject also are beginning to really think that setting the drinking age at 21 is failing in its stated mission to protect younger people. The idea that banning something might encourage abuse of it is counter intuitive, but we have reams of experience at this point to show that the prohibition has created a culture of adolescent alcohol abuse that has its own customs that differ from those of older, wiser, and crankier adults who have to suffer hangovers. Younger drinkers dont really have the experience of drinking with older people who can model moderation for them. In addition, the prohibitions on drinking create this scarcity mentality, where underage drinkers suck up all the alcohol in sight when they do get to drink, probably because theres situations where they dont have that privilege, and they resent it. The prohibition creates incentives for underage drinkers to drink heavily before they even leave the house to socialize, because they dont know what their access will be like---though its usually pretty good, and then they end up getting completely hammered. Alexandra Robbins described this process in her book Pledged, and it seemed that drinking before you go out drinking is the norm in at least the sorority environment. This can create lifelong habits, I fear, though my experience is that turning 21 starts a process of moving into more moderate drinking habits. Not that people dont get drunk, but drinking to get as drunk as possible in as short a time as possible stops being the goal. But dont take my word for it. Take this guys. The reduction in drunk driving shows how much promoting responsible playing works so much better as a social health strategy than trying to ban playing altogether. (And the rising teenage pregnancy and STD rates show how the abstinence-only strategy being prioritized over the play safe strategy failed utterly when it comes to sex.) Its basic human psychology. If something is utterly forbidden, people who indulge figure the crimes already committed, so theyre less likely to think about making smart choices that keep them safe. But if theres a little breathing room for the idea that your fun isnt the problem, but some of the effects might be, people are much more willing to talk about making responsible choices. We know this is true when it comes to sex, and Id argue that its true when it comes to drinking. Drunk driving went down because the police prioritize drunk driving while largely ignoring public intoxication. More importantly, the public service campaigns---at least in Texas---focus on the driving aspect of drunk driving, and not the drinking aspect. (No doubt much to MADDs chagrin.) Ads that tell you to take someones keys when theyve had too many imply that friends who drink together can take care of each other. Id suggest another thing thats changed dramatically since the 80s, and thats how TV approaches the subject of drinking. I remember when characters that werent supposed to be derelicts on TV rarely, if ever, drank. But now, we see TV characters drink and often we even see them drunk, but thats also followed up by something that you didnt see in the 80s and early 90s---their friends arranging for drunk people to get home safely. Shows like Sex and the City and The Office come to mind immediately as shows where Ive seen characters a) get drunk and B) not drive in a very visible way. They either get a ride from a friend or take a cab. That sort of thing has helped normalize the idea that its okay to get a ride, and you dont have to deny that youre drunk when you are. Certainly, in the past 14 years Ive lived in Austin, Ive seen a dramatic shift in peoples behavior towards finding ways to get home that dont involve driving. Call it the bend-dont-break approach, and we need to start applying it to teenage drinking.

Everyone come to John "cow farts cause global warming" Boehner's Beach Party Fundraiser!: http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthru ... party.html It's just a coincidence, right?

I don't disagree that they need to put party second and the people first, but it's not going to happen. It will never happen. But that's ok. That's why I blast both parties when I think their ideas are dumb. I could care less about the Democratic Party. When all of that hubub started with Nancy Pelosi and the CIA, I urged an investigation of everything (and I still do *cough* Eric Holder you better investigate or I'm not voting in 2012 *cough*). I believed she would be vindicated as it's not a surprise that the CIA would hide things from Congress, and I was right (she was vindicated). Party loyalty is foolish. However, because of how right wing both parties have shifted, there's no chance in hell I'd vote for a Republican in the near future. It's just gotten so ridiculous. The racism, the sexism, the homophobia, etc. I mean, seriously...calling Obama a socialist? Please, the man's not even a liberal. If he were a politician in Canada, he'd be in the Conservative Party. The only other political system that's this messed up is Britain's, although it's not nearly as bad. Speaking of party loyalty, here's another new gem from the GOP, admitting that they want to kill health care reform for the 2010 elections: [yt]apstme71AZk[/yt] Thanks, James Inhofe! And about caps: I don't think caps are needed. Malpractice suits account for a small amount of health care expenditures in this country. However, I don't deny it could use tweaking. Here's an idea from HRC and BO from when they were in the Senate, and it was killed in committee. It's shown results in over 300 hospitals around the country, with suits dropping about 68% from 2001 to 2007: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/ful ... ?query=TOC This is a similar idea to the Scandinavian system, as explained by USA Today: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/06/ ... -heal.html Caps and awards are not the issue. The number of suits are. And here's more about it: http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/documents/1008.pdf

Ok. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. The fact is that no matter what concessions would be made with regard to malpractice lawsuits, Republicans would vote against the bill. It can be seen time and time again with every piece of legislation that no matter what concessions are made, they will vote against it; barring a few drifters who are later called "traitors." The goal posts for "bipartisanship" are constantly moving, too, as can be seen with Chuck Grassley's recent comments about wanting 80 votes in the Senate bill. Lol, as if. We couldn't get 80 votes if the Democrats voted for the bill and they gave the Republicans everything they wanted, simply because it has a Democratic label on it. Now, specifically about malpractice suits...if you're suggesting "tort reform," that's not going to help anything much. What we need to do is follow Scandinavia's model for malpractice (and their model for...life). Here's how it works. Anyone is allowed to fill out a malpractice form; ANYONE. As a matter of fact, they have far more requests for medical malpractice than the United States does (three times the amount). The form goes to a board of medical doctors, and a few elected officials. As a rough estimate, 40% of the forms result in awards to the patient; FAR higher than the United States. However, they have pre-set values for what the medical malpractice involves. For example, and I'm making this number up, but they would offer 100,000 Euro for a lost hand. Maximum damages are set at approximately $1.2 million dollars. However, if you're unhappy with your settlement, you can appeal it in court. However, usually trials result in less amounts given than the board gives you, so it's not necessarily in your best interest if you're sue happy. The maximum award is $730,000. There's one final board that reviews the malpractice suit, and decides whether or not to discipline the doctor. This usually does not happen (1 in 5), and very rarely (1 in 100) the doctor's license is removed. Why or how is this effective? Well, the board throws out approximately 50% of the cases, ruling them frivolous. The average payout is around $10,000; compared to an average payout of $300,000 in the United States. Their overhead is also lower because they, for the most part, do not have the need for lawyers, judges and courts. Sources: http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/bullet ... an0104.pdf http://jhppl.dukejournals.org/cgi/conte ... t/27/5/833 Here's another source for why "tort reform" should be on the backburner: http://www.slate.com/id/2145400/ I do accuse them of being greedy, and I still do. I don't want their endorsement. As a matter of fact, when they endorsed the bill (after previously opposing it), the first thing that went through my mind was, "What kick back are they getting in this bill and why haven't I found it yet?" So, I decided to look why they endorsed it, and I didn't have to look far: http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_trea ... -bill.aspx The AMA has ALWAYS been against health care reform; always. From FDR, to Truman, to Johnson, to Nixon, to Clinton and now to Obama. It seems he brokered a deal with them with this. However, it's also important to note that the AMA doesn't have nearly the influence that they used to have. My personal views reflect facts. I don't endorse things for ideological reasons. If the private industry was sufficient at keeping down costs, could get everyone in America insured, then I would support them. My personal view is that we should be going with a single payer plan and and allowing most of the population to purchase private supplemental insurance like France does. Despite being single payer, however, they're still more like the Bismarck model because so many people purchase private supplemental that it's more like everyone being in a public plan than relying solely on it for care like Canada and Britain do. This is why I don't give a damn if there's a single payer plan, a public plan, a co-op, or w/e. All I want is a bill that gets everyone insured, keeps costs down, and keeps private insurers to keep it this way. Every other country has shown how it can be down, and how it should be done. The best model, in my opinion, for the best health care for the return on the cost is France. They're not the cheapest, but they provide the best health care for the cost. If I wanted the cheapest, I'd want Britain's model. The route Obama has decided to go is with Germany's/the Netherlands', where they have a public plan, private insurers, and an insurance mandate. It's an odd mix of the two, because the Netherlands also has an employer based model, but we pick up Germany's model with allowing everyone access to the public option. The Netherlands limits their public option to the poor and old, and requires the young, healthy and wealthy to buy private insurance. Yeah, I agree. So, how many concessions do Democrats have to make before Republicans will vote for it? 90% of Republicans won't vote for a bill with a public option despite the fact that it will bring down costs, their number one "enemy." I put enemy in quotes because they never thought of how to pay for their tax cuts for the rich, their Iraq war, or their Medicaid/care "reform." They won't vote for something that has a health insurance exchange so that if you change jobs/lose your job you don't lose your insurance. They won't vote for a national entity that has negotiating power and sets prices where negotiations start (like France does). They wouldn't vote for anything even if there was every concession in the world to them simply because it's Obama's bill, and they cannot let whatever he does be a success. It's as plain as day, man. Bill Kristol wrote a secret memo in the 90's that Republicans should not negotiate, but they should kill the bill. He wrote the same thing for the Weekly Standard about Obama, this time making it public. Jim DeMint has said that this will be "Obama's Waterloo" if we block health care reform. "It will break him." You can read their memo full of talking points right here, and here's a few doosies: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/2 ... 41940.html Don't blast the source...the memo is inside. Don't even read the article, just go straight to the bottom. It's obvious what they're trying to do. This bullcrap about "slowing it down so we can understand what we're voting for" is absolute malarkey. They want to slow it down so they can have a month break, allow the conservative for patients' rights ads to air in the Democratic districts, and get the blue dog democrats to vote with them against the bill because of their nervous constituents being scared of absolute lies. Speaking of Conservatives For Patients' Rights, the guy who started that organization was involved in the biggest health care scandal in this country, for billions of dollars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_L. ... raud_cases This is the liberal plan as well. For example, the NHS has a great program that takes people out shopping, showing them what they should buy, how to plan a budget, and what foods to avoid. I've seen their conservative party call this program a waste because "the information is readily available online or at their fingertips." Why can't this be included in such an option that Obama is proposing? Speaking of all this, I want a trans fat tax, and I want a total reform of school lunch menus. I want a ban on soda and candy vending machines in public schools. These are all a major contributor to child hood diabetes and obesity, and this trend must be reversed. However, food reform and such can come later. The most important thing right now is to get everyone insured and bend the cost curve in the other direction. We can worry about what choices people make once they're insured. She's probably selling her pills and/or her spouse/children are stealing them. I suspect it's the former. Erm, no it doesn't. Americans are for less conscious of their health than any other people on this planet, and the government doesn't take care of them. They indulge in grotesque size meals, drink corn syrup, and inject liquid fat into their veins and arteries. Health care choices are important in reducing the amount of people getting sick, and preventing them from even entering the ER. However, this can't happen when they're not educated on the topic, and when they're not insured to have a doctor give them some recommendations and preventive care in the first place. What does "pork" mean? Pork seems to mean any spending that's not for the Military Industrial Complex these days. Lol. God I wish this plan was as "liberal" as you're making it out to be. This plan is practically a give away to insurance companies because there will be a mandate. There's no other way to ensure that everyone is covered, barring a single payer system. It's a give away to Pharma, who get protection on their drug patents for 12 years (as the bill stands now). More balanced representation? Dude, get a clue. What's left of the GOP is a bunch of angry, white, far far right, religious nationalists. The Democratic party has so many conservatives in it opposing Obama that we don't even need the GOP at this point. They're just noise. While the Democrats are working on health care, we have 9 Republican representatives proposing a bill asking for the President's birth certificate. We have an opposition party that doesn't believe in evolution. We have an opposition party that claims global warming is a hoax, and the response is thunderous applause. We have an opposition party that presents a budget without numbers, and instead puts a charts and arrows. We have an opposition party who is not bringing a single idea to the table and is only opposing what the President wants to do. When Arlen Specter is considered "left enough" to become a Democrat, there is something seriously wrong with the political discourse that you're framing. Right now the Democrats are about as right wing as the Republicans used to be in the 1960's and 1970's. Eisenhower was to the left of Obama. Richard Nixon's health care plan was pretty much what Obama is currently proposing, just to give you some perspective of how far right this nation has shifted since religion became politicized with Ronald Reagan.

I didn't have too much of a problem with Barihawk's (last) post because for the most part, hospitals aren't the problem as a lot of them are non-profit. But a few things (problems) caught my eye. I will address his others later on; I'm too tired to go through the others at the moment. Before I start, I suggest everyone read this article: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009 ... rentPage=5 There probably is, if, you know, they were more educated about finances, and if the insurance company would take them on. The biggest point you're missing is not the 47 million who aren't insured; although they are a problem because they're costing me money by not being insured (going to the ER when they should be getting preventive treatment/general practitioner). It's that hundreds of millions are UNDERinsured, and the insurance company that dropped from their plan because the insurance company doesn't want to keep their end of the deal. There's also the issue of people who aren't insured who cannot get it because of pre-existing conditions, and the practice of rescissions. Or, not...as that would cause a lot of crime because of the underground tobacco industry that would form, would cause the people who need health care the most to not be able to afford it, and would only exacerbate the problem. Not really. The focus on health in this country isn't correct with its incentives. Basically, in a nut-shell: health care is a bad business model. Sort of. They don't alleviate the cost of health care, they just provide it. They may have been able to alleviate the cost if the 2007 bill was passed so that Medicare had the ability to negotiate prices, but the GOP and the corporatist Democrats voted against it. Medicare is going to bankrupt America if the status quo is not changed and reformed. Lol, talk about hypocrisy. Guys with an agenda. I'm a guy with an agenda, you're a guy with an agenda...everyone has an agenda. What matters is what their agenda is. The insurance companies, pharmacuetical companies, and the system they've instituted with doctors also have an agenda; an agenda for their share holders. I'm not saying all doctors, but selling out is very easy, and it's very tempting. They're not necessarily after profits, but the research and evidence is clear that their connections with drug companies have a high impact on what they prescribe, and how much they prescribe it: http://www.chestjournal.org/content/102/1/270.abstract http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/283/3/373#ACK http://www.springerlink.com/content/e5441404107008n8/ Look, I'm not saying Michael Moore isn't a blowhard; he is. I'm not saying he doesn't distort things in his documentaries, he does; he doesn't show both sides of the coin. However, by and large, what Michael Moore stated was correct: the insurance companies, big pharma companies and the AMA (at times, as they have been stopping health care reform since the 1930's) want to keep America sick, and fill their share holders pockets with money. Hell, an ex-CIGNA CEO just came out on Bill Moyers: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07102009/profile.html That'd be nice, but the Republicans aren't interested in reform, they never have been, and they never will be. They're strictly out to kill reform at any cost because of politics. So are you for or against a public option which would operate in a similar fashion as the Post Office competing with UPS and Fedex?

It depends which system you're talking about. In Britain? Yes, that's true. It's not true in a vast array of other systems. It's not true in Germany, it's not true in France, it's not true in the Netherlands. Problem: most evidence shows these surgeries and procedures are WHY our costs are spiraling out of control, and moreover, have provided for little to no benefit. Doctors are giving people in this country surgeries that they frankly don't need; tests that they don't need; medicine that they don't need. Furthermore, the innovation of the American system has nothing to do with the privatization of it because the innovator has been the National Institutes of Health, a government organization and branch of the State Department. Ok, it's a little blanketed to say privatization has "nothing" to do with it, but it's disingenuous in my opinion to say that innovation will go down versus saying it could go down. Here's some reading on it: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html? ... 260b25edd4 Are you saying that Britain, France, Norway, Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, South Korea, Japan, Canada, Spain, and pretty much every other industrialized western nation are all NOT capitalist? The only country that even comes close to being socialist on that list is Sweden, and they're still far off the mark. Sweden has less intervention in their markets than we do. If companies are on the verge of failing, they let them; the difference is that Sweden sets up barriers so that companies collapsing will not result in economic meltdown. Or, you know, the commercial is lying: A cyst is not the same thing as a tumor, and it's not life threatening as she claimed in the commercial. Not only is a cyst not a tumor, it's not in the same ball park, it's not in the same league, it's not in the same sport. If you can afford them. http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Industry ... 839&page=1 Anecdotes are cool. Japan has "socialized" health care. This doesn't happen/only happens on rare occasion, and if they can't wait for a hip replacement that's not life threatening, they can buy private insurance to make up for it. The only countries that are really "full scale" are Britain and Canada, but I'd say Britain is by far the most socialist as its doctors and nurses are employed by the government. The rest of the countries use the Bismarck model, which has a mix of public and private; mostly where the private is supplemental. There's a push to go to this model in Canada, and some provinces want to do it, but the talking points from their populists are "We don't want to go American for health care." What is bankrupting our system is the status quo. 8-16% increases in health care costs in 1 year is not sustainable when 17% of our GDP is already spent on health care. And most of all, we need to remove the regulations around our drugs that protect the pharmacuetical corporations from competition. They have the luxury of patenting their drugs and not having any other corporation competing with it because of government protection. Hell, this Senate bill gives them 12 years of protection for biotech drugs. That's ridiculous. It should be 5 years just like every other drug; Obama wants the provision to be 7, the drug companies want 15.

[yt]3kB-5Srv05M[/yt] The ending to this video has merit in this thread.

[hide=][hide]Age: 21 State (US only, do not give a city): Virginia Nation (do not give a city): United States Educational level: College degree -if secondary or below, what level? -If at a university/college, what level and what is your major/minor course of study? Undergraduate BS in Aerospace Engineering 1. Have you ever attended a worship of any religion? Yes. -by choice? Yes. -What kind of worship? Evangelical Christian Right, Southern Baptist, Islam (Shia), Catholic, Universal Unitarianism, Jewish, Seventh Day Adventist, Yoga (if you consider this religion, some do; I do not). -Did you regularly attend this worship, by choice or parental guidance? Not anymore. I regularly attended the Catholic from birth until age 10. I then regularly attended the 7th day until I was around 12. We then went to the Evangelical Christian Right church, and my parents still attend it. I stopped going after I left for college, as I did not like the bigotry that they preached, and I felt it was an endorsement of this behavior if I attended. 2. Do you consider yourself religious? -Please explain in two or three sentences. No, not really. I consider myself spiritual, in that I marvel at the beauty and nature of the entire universe. 3. Is there a god, gods, or a supreme deity? It's possible, but I'm fairly certain there isn't one. -Did said god, gods, or supreme being create the Universe, according to your belief? N/A 4. Is there an afterlife? I don't know, I don't care to know and I don't think anyone else does or ever will know. 5. How do you believe that existence came about? (in a nutshell) I try to stray away from belief. I haven't thought about it, and it never really occurred to me to be of extreme or even noticeable concern. If we figure out what was before the big bang, we're only going to be hit with more questions as to where that came from; that is of course unless we discover that the entire universe is a vacuum and matter/energy spontaneously form. However, what's outside of this universe? Etc. So even though I don't object to people looking to how these questions are solved and what their answers are, I just don't care and find it to be a big waste of time, philosophically speaking. I'd say scientifically as well, but discovering more on that aspect could only help our lives. 6. Have you ever attended a worship of any religion that you do not consider yourself a part of? Yes, all the time. -What? Islam, Jewish, and assorted Christianities. I want to attend a buddhist place of worship sometime. -Your thoughts on the experience. It was interesting, although certainly not something I'd do on a regular basis. I look to assorted churches for volunteer service most of the time because they're the easiest to organize and know the project will have a high chance of success. 7. What are your thoughts on non Judeo-Christian Western religions? Remember that religion is a broad term so please be specific. I believe Jainism and certain sects of Buddhism to be the only "non-corruptible" of all religions, not just Western/non-western. Not that the people can't be corrupt, but that it would be impossible to corrupt the religion itself by twisting scriptures; or not twisting, as some of it no matter how you interpret it is disgusting. The rest (Islam, many of the Indian religions, and certain sects of Buddhism) are all corruptible and I think the world would have been a better place without them. Meh, it's arguable that Islam has kept what we currently know as knowledge and literature alive during the period of the Moors in Spain; and it's also arguable that Islam was necessary to free a lot of the slave bondage and history of torture and mistreatment among the people in the area where Muhammad first conquered. However, I don't think these arguments are correct. I'm not going to delve into that at this present time as I'm too tired and I have many other questions to answer, but I believe both sides have points of merit. I believe Islam is very aggressive against equal rights for women, and especially gays. It can also be argued that women who choose to wear a veil/hijab/burka do so as a means of expressing their feminism; they're emboldened by having control over what men and can and cannot see. However, I also believe this argument is crap. Women shouldn't be under the mercy of men for fear over what their God thinks because little Johnny couldn't keep his eyes off of her [wagon] and boobs. Sure in some areas they choose to wear it, but a choice goes only so far in certain cultures. Of course there are other areas where their sexism is portrayed, but this was just a simple example. Needless to even get into Saudi Arabia with their dissallowment of women drivers. 8. What are your thoughts on Judeo-Christian religions? Remember that religion is a broad term and that both of these groups have many subdivisions that have radically different beliefs and practices. Pretty much the same as Islam, except I think Christianity has always been a burden and really couldn't be argued in good faith that it's been a compliment to society. Islam can barely do this, and that's only because of their preservation in a time where Christianity had a war on knowledge, science and books. 9. What are your thoughts on Asian religions? Remember that religion is a broad term so please be specific. I talked about them above. 10. What are your thoughts on African religions? Remember that religion is a broad term, so please be specific. I haven't thought about them. I feel that a lot of their poverty and lack of any true economy is to blame on tribal wars fueled by religion. 11. What are your thoughts on South American religions? Remember that religion is a broad term, so please be specific. Of course my response to 10. could also be neglected by looking at these religions with the Aztecs and such. However, they also existed in a time where the world wasn't connected and didn't have to compete with other nations. Again, no real thought. 12. What are your thoughts on Aboriginal religions (any native group that was displaced, such as Native Americans, Maori, Aborigines, etc)? Remember that religion is a broad term, so please be specific. The same as number 10 and 11. 13. What are your thoughts on pagan religions (Wiccan, alternative, Satanic, and other non-traditional forms of worship)? Remember that religion is a broad term, so please be specific. Also note that many alternative and pagan practices are not affiliated with Satanic worship. I don't think of these as religions but more of ways of life. Sure religion is a "way of life" in practice, but in general it's not that of in that way. To each his own, as I don't see these as religions. 14. What are your thoughts on atheism, the belief that there is no supreme being(s)? Please remember that there are degrees to this belief, and that not all share the same thoughts. I'm much more sympathetic towards atheists because percentage wise they're more accepting of science and reason. I don't like violent and aggressive atheism because I believe it turns people away from thinking and critically observing what they believe (by violent I mean aggressive, not physical or mental violence). It's not necessarily that people feel uncomfortable examining themselves--and they do--but they're much less likely to listen to someone saying what others believe in is "[cabbage]." I've done it sometimes, but not in a necessarily aggressive way. More of a talking amongst friends and having a Freudian slip occasionally. 15. What are your thoughts on agnosticism, the belief that a supreme being(s) exists, but the individual chooses not to worship it/them (or if one is unsure if a supreme being exists, but does not outright deny its existence)? The same as atheism. The two are not mutually exclusive, either, contrary to popular belief. 16. Have you ever publicly chastised someone who believes in a religion/school of thought different than yours? Yes. -elaborate. It's been too many to list, but it usually didn't come about because of something that I said. Almost always it's because they ask me questions about science, they try and convert me, and then I mock them. For example I told my parents that what they believe is superstitious nonsense. I also remember saying that what my Muslim friend believed was "[cabbage]," because if anyone did what Muhammad did in the present day, they'd laugh him out of town. She got offended and defriended me on AIM for about 3 days over it. I felt bad. -what group were they? what group were you? My parents are evangelical Christians, and that woman was a Muslim. 17. If you belong to a religion or non-religion, please identify. I "was" an evangelical Christian -Did you consciously choose to follow this belief? Yes, but I didn't really "follow" it, per se. More later on. -Did you belong to another belief, by choice or force, before following this belief? Yeah, I was Catholic by force. I went to CCD because I didn't go to Catholic school anymore (2nd grade and on). I thought of it as a joke, and I mostly played Gameboy in church. More later on: I mostly subscribed to this religion to be close to my family. We've always been apart and have never shared any interests in anything, or believed the same when it came to any view of the world. So I saw this as something that they enjoyed, and it's nice sometimes to hear some guy talk about how to do good in the world, etc. It was a way for me to share what little we had in common; which if you got down to brass tax it was nothing. I eventually stopped going because of their anti-gay/Muslim views, and because I couldn't pretend that I was something I wasn't. -Did you personally research (as in personally in the first person) options before coming to this belief? Nah, too young and at the time the internet was just booming. 18. Is intelligence (not IQ, but actual intelligence) correlated to one's belief in a religion or non-religion? Keep in mind that intelligence can not be measured by any science, this is simply your judgment call. Yes, it is correlated. Meh, it can't be "measured," sure, but you can "measure" it. I think you know what I mean. It's not scientifically proven, but it is not simply a guess or a suggestion. It's pretty much understood that if someone has a high IQ that they ARE quite intelligent...even if it's not a science. 19. Does religion, in your observation, do good in the world? Please cite specific groups or denominations. As I stated earlier, I think it can, but overall it's a net negative. The Moors of Spain are the best example in my opinion of finding "good" in the world. Also, people tend to be more giving if they're religious. Most studies show conservatives giving more than liberals, but when religion is controlled for, there is no noticeable difference. It's obvious that religion plays an important part in that. At the same time, I think religious people are also conservative economically....so it's quite the conundrum. I also think that religion calls things good and bad based on its own terms based on things with no evidence (God). So when I think of a Catholic nun going to Africa to educate the children, I don't necessarily see this as a good thing because I don't think they're there out of the goodness of their own heart. They want to convert people. Now, that could be "goodness" because they fear for this person's life, but some of the methods used are atrocious, and prior to the nuns this was called "colonialism." 20. Does non-religion, in your observation, do good in the world? Please cite specific groups or denominations. It does. It doesn't allow beliefs (usually) to get in the way of finding what we know as "truths" in this world. Religions are so quick to shut things out. Yeah, you could argue that scientists "shut" religion out, but I think there's ample evidence as to why this is the case; and it's not because they're afraid of their Creator and want to sin. I don't know of any organized groups that label themselves as non-religious that do good lol. I mean there's plenty of organizations that are absent from religion, but it's not on their label. 21. Does religion, in your observation, do bad in the world? Please cite specific groups or denominations. Yes. Wars, although political, are only fought by the willingness of the people. I think it's disingenuous to say religion didn't play a part and that it was all "politics." Nonetheless, I think what's worse than religion in this regard are people's loyalty to nations rather than the ideals these nations stood/stand for. The two are not the same and are almost always mixed when they shouldn't be. Only one true case of this I believe was WWII. 22. Does non-religion, in your observation, do bad in the world? Please cite specific groups or denominations. Sure? I mean people are bad sometimes lol...and I'm sure there are non-religious. I can't think of any groups that specifically label themselves as non-religion who have done bad, though. 23. Please list your experience with sexual education, including but not limited to: lectures by parents, schools, religion, or non-education. Please do not list your sexual experiences. 1. Parents. Before my mother became an evangelical shill for the "all people not in my religion are evil" crowd, I was fairly well educated. I was shown the different body parts and their functions by age seven, and was taught what sex was and what it was used for. Nothing specific like disease and protection, or even specifics of sex. Just a basic gist, as I had asked about it. I didn't ask where babies came from, but I did ask what sex was used for. 2. Schools. Horrible. Most of the teachers were too embarrassed to talk about it, and they never talked about protection as much as they should have. Disease was mentioned far more than how to prevent the disease from happening. I would have liked to have been shown how to use a condom, and what one was...I learned how to properly use one on my own. 3. Religion. Horrible, too, because of the abstinence crap. 24. Have you engaged in sexual intercourse of any kind? Please do not list your sexual experiences. A yes or no will suffice. Yes. 25. What, in your opinion, defines "love?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_( ... fic_views) 26. Have you ever been in, or are now in, a relationship? Yes, I'm currently in one. -Is sex involved? Of course. 27. Are you single/committed relationship/married? Committed to my relationship. 28. What, in your opinion, is sex's place in a relationship (or lack of relationship)? It should be heavily involved. It's a great time for two beings to share a sensuous time. It shouldn't be demonized, it should be practiced often and freely, and it should be encouraged and respected. People talk about the sanctity of marriage. I believe in the sanctity of self and of body; penetrating/being penetrated and allowing someone inside your body is what's "sacred." Letting someone do this shouldn't be taken lightly, necessarily, but it also should be put down as something that shouldn't happen often/with many people. It should be about choice and what people are comfortable with. I don't believe that there's such thing as [bleep]s or [bleep]. They're sexist terms designed to target women, even if "both" can be one or the other. If someone wants to sleep with a lot of people, that's their choice and we shouldn't judge them for it. 29. Have you ever partaken in an illicit substance (excluding alcohol or marijuana)? No, not yet. -if so, what? I haven't yet, but I want to do LSD and shrooms. I've also done nicotine, which I consider one of the most dangerous drugs that there are. -Have you ever lost control of your actions while under the influence of an illicit substance? Not on nicotine, no. 30. Have you ever partaken in marijuana? Yes. -Do you habitually use this substance? Yes. About once a week, sometimes more (but rarely). I wouldn't consider this abuse because it's not like I smoke all day when I do it. It'd be like having a 3 beers or something one night a week. -Have you ever been "stoned?" Yep. -Have you ever lost control of your actions while under the influence of marijuana? No, not to my knowledge. I did eat an entire bag of Doritos once, and I wouldn't have done that under normal circumstances lol. I think using these substances opens new perspectives about life, and shouldn't be looked at as immoral. Abuse shouldn't be encouraged, of course, but use shouldn't be seen as the boogeyman. It's like when you're a child growing up, all of the sudden these shutters go over your eyes. I think using these substances opens them back up, and allows for different looks at this so called life. 31. Have you ever partaken in the consumption of alcohol? Yes. -Do you drink socially or alone? Or both? Rarely alone. Actually, only twice in my life. -Have you ever been drunk? Yes. -Have you ever lost control of your actions while under the influence of alcohol? Yes. My friend and I slept together without wanting to whilst we were drunk. Some people say these are just suppressed feelings waiting to get out, but I'm sure both of us feel it was sexual tension and need wanting to get out rather than want for each other. 32. Have you ever regretted a sexual encounter? Nah. There's no room in this world for regrets. I simply look at them as experiences that have shaped my world view and made me into the person that I am. 33. Have you ever regretted using an illicit substance? (excluding hangovers) No. Even if I lived with regrets, no. 34. Have you ever regretted using alcohol? (excluding hangovers) No. Only if you count feeling sick the night of rather than the next day lol. 35. Have you ever given serious thought (longer than 30 minutes in a year) to the existence of a supreme being(s)? My friend and I discuss the philosophy of this whilst we're high a lot. Sure it's a waste of time, but so is everything else in this world. I didn't mean to demonize the thought process about this in the former answers to these questions. I think religion is very fascinating and interesting. Talking about it, beyond mocking it lol, is one of my favorite past times. Conclusion: In a nutshell, I think religion is nothing but a tool to control people. Always has been, and always will be. That's a vast over generalization, mind you, but I believe it to be the case.[/hide] There you go. I hope it's helpful for you. If you have any specific questions for me specifically beyond this, feel free to PM if you don't want this clogged. Sorry if that sounded vain...

Yes an ignorant post about how the media was hyped up about the ice age 30 years ago...just like they are hyped up about global warming now. Sorry, but that's the fault of the media, not the science. The science during when the media hyped up about this ice age [cabbage] was saying, for the most part, what it's saying now (with less certainty, as there wasn't a consensus during the 70's). And what are you talking about them hyping up about global warming? As Lateralus stated on these boards some months ago, I believe climate change is very serious, it's going to cause some serious economic and living dangers in the foreseeable future and no one except for the Nords and Germans are taking it very seriously. We need all the hype we can get. Unfortunately, the cooling myth is still being hyped up more than ever: [yt]CORecPLTWAM[/yt] [yt]XxlnEVVsIT0[/yt] I still see no hype about global warming on the media. The media likes division and controversy; they're going to report about the cooling myth as this is what causes that. You call it a strawman, I call your assessment of what I said a strawman. Why? Because I never said that. I said the denial and tactics between the two are interrelated. If I did what you said, though, it would have been a red herring and not a strawman. Teaching both causes confusion, as can be seen in your previous post (and I suspect your current post, as it doesn't sound like you believe in global warming at all, let alone that humans are the cause). The media is still acting like there's a division about evolution as well by having people like Ray Comfort, Kirk Cameron and Casey Luskin: [yt]P1JQ96ou4WA[/yt] [yt]Az8k0uzQ6sA[/yt] Rather than listening to the media's "hype," why not look at the science yourself?

I love this myth! Thanks for bringing it up. What estimates are saying this? None to my knowledge. The idea of climate change via CO2 pollution has been postulated since the 1950's. There were scientists back in the '70's who wrote papers about the possibility of global cooling because of the growing cloud cover that would reflect sunlight back. One scientist to propose this was Steven Schnieder at Stanford. He has since changed his mind about this as the new evidence has come in, clearly stating, "Nobody likes to be wrong. I never said that 'I predict that we're going to produce an ice age. What I said was under these assumptions this is what you get, other scientists said this could trigger an ice age." This ice age myth was made popular by Newsweek and TIME, and I'm sure you've seen Penn from Penn and Teller bring it up to spout what he says he's against: [cabbage]. As ever popular by sensationlist media, they cherry picked a lot of what was stated to meet different conclusions than the scientists. In the very paper it was stated, "we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machines and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate..." Here's where the senationalism came from: "The onset of (cooling) could be several thousand years in the future, although there is a finite possibility that a serious worldwide could befell the earth within the next hundred years." "A leading effect is the enrichment of the atmospheric CO2 content by the combustion of fossil fuels...Such effects may combine to offset the natural cooling trend, or to enhance a natural warming." During this same period, 71 studies were released relating to this area. 20 were neutral. 7 predicted cooling. 44 predicted warming. This was from 1965-1979. Here is a good video regarding it: [yt]EU_AtHkB4Ms[/yt] Nah, I hate when people try and present religion as science, and act like there's a debate. As can be seen from your ignorant post about an impending ice age 30 years ago, the "teach both" position has birthed some fruit, fruit that I'd like to avoid in the future with our children.

Why should we let kids debate both sides in science class? What purpose does that serve? How do you teach it? Most importantly, which creationism story do you teach? Why is it stupid? It doesn't belong in science class, so why should it be brought up? It makes absolutely no sense. The only reason they want to teach both is to create a false controversy about evolution and to confuse children. It's exactly why idiots still deny global warming. We have people saying, "Well, there's a lot of experts who don't believe in global warming, or that it's caused by humans even if it's happening." They use the same tactics that have been used for eons with evolution. There were other areas where this happened as well. The big tobacco companies hired a guy to present a false controversy with "experts" to deny the link between cancer and cigarettes. This same institute (the George C. Marshal Institute) tried to bring up a "list of scientists and experts"--as if science is about whose list is the biggest--supporting Ronald Reagan's missile defense initiative. Most physicists said it was bogus, but they created a false controversy with "experts" to make it sound plausible. And what do you know, the same group involved in that is currently involved in global warming denial. The same group that denied the link between tobacco and cancer, the same group that got "physicists" to say what a great idea the missile defense initiative was, is the same group (led by the same person) that has led the biggest crusade against global warming and its facts. These strategies were being used and have been used with evolution. This is why the "teach both" is so dangerous. It creates a false controversy, confuses children and the general public, and now we have illiterate morons who know nothing about the facts of science. Of course it goes both ways at times (rarely), Al Gore sensationalized a lot of the science and didn't explain things too well with his "Inconvenient Truth, but it's almost always with denialists that this is popular. It's not like Gore lied about the bulk of the information, either, just exaggerated things (like my earlier example with the Greenland ice sheets). They don't. They get suspended for teaching it as credible science. Just the other day (months?) I saw a history teacher mock it and call it "superstitiuous nonsense" when the child brought it up. He got in trouble, as a matter of fact, not by the school, but by the courts. http://www.topix.com/us/politics/2009/0 ... nts-rights They don't. No you're not. You're arguing to teach superstitious nonsense in the school system because it "opens up debate!" See what I wrote at the very beginning. Um, what do personal beliefs have to do with teaching false controversies?

I don't appreciate religion being taught in science class, nor do I appreciate religion being masked as science. I also don't like when people lie in order to "teach both" by acting as if there's still a debate about this. Why don't we teach about the flat earth in science as a credible theory as if there's a debate? Why don't we teach that the Earth is the center of the universe, as if there's still a debate? Why are we only limiting this to evolution? Btw, which creationism story do we teach? *sigh* Ok. When a drone attacks a terrorist site, there's sometimes civilians in the area. Almost always as a matter of fact. If you kill 1 terrorist with the drone attack, and you kill 20 civilians in the same strike...you just created at minimum 3 more terrorists. It's counterproductive. Just imagine if you were starved for an education, food and water that was promised to you over 20 years ago by Ronald Reagan and George Bush I and it hasn't been delivered yet, people invade your country, start killing your peers and fellow civilians in the name of freedom, and then you're not even being helped with infrastructure? You're going to be radicalized. It's needless. Thankfully, Obama sees this and has ordered McCrystal to have way less drone attacks and only use them if they're absolutely needed and if there's no civilians in the vicinity. Of course this won't happen every time, but it's a step in the right direction. It doesn't? So then all those heterosexual couples being recognized by the federal government are being recognized illegally? All of those federal benefits they receive are being given out with no authority? He doesn't believe in evolution, so it would only make sense that he wouldn't believe in climate change either, because most of our evidence comes from ice core samples and things aged older than 6,000 years. Not happening in Europe, so I have no reason to believe this would happen with the United States. Moreover, being the "leader" of the world and issuing climate change sends messages to other countries. For example, just today: http://planetark.org/wen/53618 This was exactly the idea behind trying to pass it in the House, even if it will fail in the Senate (which it probably will). No, the effects cannot be reversed and instead we'll be forced to deal with what we're dished out, rather than reversing the trends. We'll just have to cope with less food supply, droughts and problems in irrigation. I'm not too concerned about the Greenland ice sheet melting and "putting Florida underwater," as most climate scientists agree that this will not happen for another 1,000 years. However, something to keep in mind is that those estimates are using our current output rate. If the permafrost in Russia melts, all of that methane will be released and exacerbate the problem severely. Erm....no? Their pay really has nothing to do with it. It's about incentives. Our health care costs are out of control because of people being over-tested and the lack of preventive care for diabetes and heart diseases. The over-testing occurs because people are going to the hospital for something that should be taken care of at a normal practitioner. You are paying for the uninsured without even realizing it. No, someone believing in God is just irrational about that particular aspect of life. Of course we're all irrational about something, so it's not necessarily a bad thing. Anyway, the problem isn't a belief in God, it's portraying religion in science class as science. Are you? They can. Who said they can't? Arguing that we should teach about God in science isn't taking a "two-sided approach," w/e that means. It's teaching religion in science class and purposefully confuses children. Yep, never said it wasn't. Yes it does because it shows she doesn't believe in evolution, as every advocate of the "teach both" is trying to infiltrate the school system with religion. No matter what South Park told you, the middle is not the ideal position. When one preaches peace and the other genocide, moderation isn't a virtue. Yeah, damn my "bigotry" against religious zealots trying to get religion in the public school system and act as if there's a controversy about evolution! Damn me!

I know plenty about her. Where did you get that inference from? I said I don't know what she specifically got done in her office, and stated that perhaps it's because she has literally done nothing. I mean, when people outside your office put up a clock that's counting down the time until you leave, I think that says a lot about you. http://newsminer.com/news/2009/jul/06/p ... g-her-out/ Practically every newspaper in the state said, "Bye, and don't let the door hit you on the way out!" http://www.npr.org/blogs/politics/2008/ ... udget.html And I was talking about her slashes to teenage mothers and special needs children. Just the irony in how she parades her children around like props to show what a good mother she is, and then slashes help for those who need it most. Source B.) Wassalia wasn't the only town in Alaska to follow this practice. It was practice in most small towns-- And has been practiced before Palin became mayor-- As it was done in order to offset the costs involved in conducting a test and prevent those costs from being passed on to taxpayers. C.) Palin never, not once, argued against a 2000 piece of legislation which banned the practice. http://www.cityofwasilla.com/index.aspx?page=136 Fail more. She changed the cost from the police departments to the women themselves. You can read the rest of it here. Hardly the "religious zealot" you make her out to be. Exactly like I said: she's a religious zealot. Anyone arguing for "teach both" is a religious zealot who doesn't believe in science. Lol, your link really doesn't prove that at all. All it does is say, "what if she was talking about this..." No matter which she was talking about, it's pure ignorance and stupidity. No? Then why all of the emails among Republican strategists and lawmakers in Alaska who are unhappy with her? FOX News isn't news, though. It's just a circus that lies. It's also owned by the corporate media conglomerate, News Corporation by Rupert Murdoch. CNN is owned by Time Warner, and is fairly right wing. MSNBC is owned by NBC Universal, another entertainment company. MSNBC is pretty bad, too, unless Rachel Maddow is on. Olbermann is just an annoying blow hard. None of these major news outlets are actual news companies, they're entertainment companies. Name some left wing personalities on these networks. I can name you two: Maddow and Olbermann. What we're getting are "show trials," which are trials conducted when one knows the person is guilty, yet doesn't conduct trials for people who can't be convicted with 100% certainty. That's not how the justice system works, sorry, and it's absolutely tyrannical to hold people indefinitely without a trial or charge. Yes, if you can't charge them or convict them of anything, release them. "Swearing allegiance to Bin Laden" doesn't cut it. And your "one in seven" is a falsehood, and even if it weren't, I don't care. Justice is justice: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... york-times Fair enough, it's just characteristic of warmongering nationalists. Because you create more terrorists. Killing them isn't the answer. Building infrastructure, schools and hospitals is. How else can it be carried out? "Oh, you admitted you're gay but you don't have to be discharged even though that's what the law says." And please, it's discriminatory by nature, and it hurts their ability to serve in the military. Because homosexual state marriages aren't recognized by the federal government which is discriminatory against gays? Not to mention it's not Constitutional. No, that's actually NOT an appeal to authority. Is it an appeal to authority to cite scientific knowledge? No. We can't all be experts on everything. An argument from authority would be, "Paul Krugman says this, and because Paul Krugman said it, it must be true." That's not what I did. So can I. Most of them are found here: http://mises.org/ You know, the school of economics that's not bound in reality, but philosophy. No it's not. It's not baseless, you don't believe in evolution and have stated so on many occasion. Erm, no, this has nothing to do with Obama. I've long supported Cap and Trade because it's a good system to reduce emissions. Just look at the 1990's emissions trading that was done with Sulfur. It reduced emissions by 50% in 17 years. It also reduced the environmental cost of dealing with the SO2 emissions by 80%. How so? Oh no! The horror of the GDP reduction!: In 2050, GDP without Waxman-Markey is projected to be $35,377,000,000,000. GDP with Waxman-Markey is projected to be $34,918,000,000,000. I don't know what the composition of the Earth's atmosphere of only 0.04% has to do with not affecting climate change, but 385 parts per million of CO2 is what we're currently looking at. It is irreversible if CO2 goes above 450 ppm, which it undoubtedly will, and Steve Chu thinks we'll be lucky if we max at 550 ppm. This is all nonsense from the Heritage Foundation lol. I'm sick and tired of hearing that "0.01%" number. Yes it is. By every stretch of the imagination, it's cheaper. It's cheaper per capita, it's cheaper as a percentage of GDP, it's cheaper in physical dollars spent. Lol, pork accounts for 1% of the budget. Yes, that spending is just out of control. It couldn't POSSIBLY be Medicare and Medicaid, with health care costs rising at 10% in 2009 from 2008! Nah, couldn't possibly be the case... Yeah, let's just bomb the [bleep] out of innocent civilians and create more terrorists! Sounds like "sound" policy to me.

Maybe because she hasn't done anything? Who the hell knows what goes on in specific policies state by state by the governor? I barely know what my governor does, but I pay attention to policies I care about when they're around the corner. What I do know that she did while serving in Alaska was poorly manage a budget, she made women pay for their own rape kits, she's a religious zealot who doesn't believe in science or evolution and openly mocks drosophila research, and she was very unpopular in her Congress from both the Republicans and Democrats. And that's just going by what happened in Alaska. Are you seriously THAT delusional, Sly? Are you that dense to just blame "the media," when the media is so far to the right and in corporate hands? And what unsound policies are you talking about? Because I could name a bunch, ones that you'd be cheering on as wonderful. You know, like the idea of indefinite detention without charge or trial, warrantless wiretapping, eavesdropping on your emails (and this is not paranoia, as there have been reports and reports of the government "abusing" their already abusive policy), drone attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan, not repealing all of the anti-gay legislation like DADT and DOMA, etc. I'm sure you'll cite the stimulus package when most economists supported one (and most thought it was too small), climate change because you probably don't believe in it as you don't believe in evolution, universal health care even though it's cheaper and brings down health care costs (which are the real threat to the American deficit) and the fact that he's not bombing Iran by now.

High school? Are you nuts? No, it needs to start in kindergarten, with "age-appropriate sex education." You can get more graphic as the years go on, but kids should know what a condom is and how to use one by the time they're in middle school.

I figured this would be a discussion about one's choice for abstinence. Instead it's a discussion about the worst form of birth control advocacy that this planet has ever come to reconcile with. "Abstinence is the ONLY birth control." Yeah, ok, lunatic right-wing religious zealot, the adults are talking about the real world here. Funding abstinence education makes as much sense as funding alternative medicines: it's a waste of money and hasn't yielded any results since the funding has been put in place. Yank the funding, put it into sex-education and distribution of condoms and BC. "Abortions are terrible! Make them illegal!" Abstinence advocacy only reveals the real underlying pretense behind making abortion illegal by the right-wing fundies: controlling women, and controlling peoples' sex lives.

I love how your source was a clearly objective news station that had no alterior motive in the rubbish article. Lol, relax. It's Wonkette, it's the style that the author writes in. They're very facetious.

Are most Americans governor? Are most Americans running for VP? Do most Americans have the possibility of becoming President if a 72-year old cancer survivor kicks it or retreats to the hospital? No. And also, as idiotic as a lot of Americans are, I highly doubt that 51% of Americans couldn't name another Supreme Court Case, and I also doubt most Americans didn't think about the Iraq War until 2006. Im speaking to the behavior/naivity; not the fact that most people arent governors, lets not be facetious The only common court cases are; roe v wade, plessy v ferguson, and brown v board. Beyond those three I highly doubt 85% of the population will know any(I only knew about 5 pre AP US history) court cases; much less have an idea what they were about. Anybody else find it amusing two Americans are arguing about how stupid Americans are? Lol, I find it very amusing. Anyway, here's more evidence of her stupidity in the text of her speech, as pointed out by Democratic strategist, Paul Begala: She has a degree in journalism, and she doesn't know where to put the emphasis on words or how to do it. You don't capitalize, you italicize or underline. And why would you put your son's name in quotes? She's just a moron who doesn't know how to write, that's why.

*yawn* Lame holiday. Oh well, it gives me an excuse to get schwasted and do illegal things.