toastywombel

Okay so I used the color that was on the test board from the link you provided, So everyone else knows and ease of use, it is HTML 335e8e. I haven't done the borders yet, or added the text but this is so you can get an idea.

There is already a theoretical particle that is suspected to travel back in time, its called a tachyon. Check it out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

Blindly sticking to atheism is just as ignorant as sticking to any ideology that attempts to explain an unknown..

I began reading at an early age (around 3). Many of my relatives gave me books. One I remember was this endangered species book, which at the time was way ahead of my reading level, because of this, initially, I was more interested in the vivid pictures, however as I learned more words and read more of the book I began to understand evolution, as it was briefly described in that book. It made sense to me since I was little, maybe its because I was introduced to it first, and their was a illustration in the book, that took up a whole page that I always loved and it was a long evolutionary tree, showing the evolution from a sea creature to a chimpanzee. I remember when I was in about second grade I mentioned evolution around the dinner table with my Grandparents, and they were strict Catholic, and you can guess they didn't take it well. This upset me really bad, I think this also might be one of the reasons why I have such a negative view towards religion. Even though I grew up in a Catholic family, my parents were pretty open about religion and accepting of other peoples beliefs, I think that allowed me to explore beliefs on my own. However, I never really got into religion.

Just to make note, If you look at my posts I think it is quite obvious that I have promoted a mixed economy. But in my previous post I have to admit I somewhat lost patience, my apologies.

Okay Hold up Jackson, the opposite of capitalism is not socialism and the opposite of communism is not democracy. I have taken three years of college level political science to know that that is straight bs. I would suggest you look at some political diagrams that show the relationships between different political groups. The opposite of free market capitalism would most likely be serfdom, and the opposite of democracy would probably be a Monarchy, or Dictatorship. It is possible to have a capitalist-socialist society and a communist-democratic society, therefore I would not consider them opposites. Opposites would be mutually exclusive, for example you can not have a democratic Monarchy, or a capitalism-serfdom. If anything I would say that Socialism is opposite of Nationalism and Communism is opposite of of Fascism (in principle). I really don't have the time to argue with you any more Jackson, I have decided that I should stay away from the politics section for a while. But it was fun while it lasted

Oh babay! I'm in!

Jackson33, I decided to see if charity could take the place of government by providing for the society more adequately as you inferred. http://www.kaiseredu.org/topics_im.asp?imID=1&parentID=61&id=358 The above link mentions the healthcare costs of 2007 (around 2.2 trillion dollars). This includes public and private funding for healthcare. http://www.america.gov/st/washfile-english/2007/June/200706261522251CJsamohT0.8012354.html The link above this, on the other hand lists all charitable donations by United States citizens/business/corporations for 2006. "Americans increased their charitable donations significantly in 2006 to more than $295 billion -- a record, according to a study released June 25 by the Giving USA Foundation, which reports on charitable contributions. "The overwhelming majority of this money was donated by individuals, not corporations or foundations, according to the chairman of Giving USA, Richard Jolly. Donations from individuals, including bequests, accounted for 83.3 percent of total giving last year, or $245.8 billion, he told USINFO." So, how do you expect charity to help provide for the society's needs if the total charity from 2006 only constitutes roughly one eighth of the total healthcare costs? And I am only listing healthcare, were not even talking about food, shelter, water, and other needs. It is obvious that charity cannot do it alone.

You really think that we could have the following programs simply through donations. FCC? FDA? National Guard? Military? Airport Security? Parks and Recreation? Zoning laws? FTC? You know before the regulations put in place after during the 40's, 50's, and 60's we were much like a third world nation. If you went on strike back in the twenties you were thrown in jail, if you owed debt you got thrown in debter's prison. There were hardly any worker rights, no women's rights, no african american rights, no latino rights. If business were always responsible, fair, and charitable we would have not needed worker's rights laws and discrimination rights laws. It appears as if you have no ability to differentiate socialism from communism, as I think Skeptic is referring to. There is a difference. You can have a socialist/ capitalist mixed economy (the United States for example). It is not simply one or the other. Furthermore, I don't think the food analogy is a good one. The government taking over food would be difficult. There are regional differences and a good many different kinds of foods. Business does this well, by bringing diversity. For example a Walmart in Connecticut probably doesn't sell as much Green Chili as a Walmart in the southwest. Healthcare on the other hand is not as diverse. If someone has AIDS there are only so many ways to treat them as opposed to if someone is hungry, there is a plethora of food they might want. If you set up food like a single payer system for food, and it was run correctly, it would make it possible for consumers to not only go to any store and get food, also the cost of the food per person would be cheaper because the population is paying the farmers, store chains, and other business involved in bringing the food to the store as a whole. As a whole the society has more collective bargaining power. Of course there would have to be some rationing, but at least it would be fair rationing and not rationing by "if you have money you get the rations". It is funny that you can't consider the military as a socialist program. It is offered by a portion of the collected wealth from society. Yes it offers protection from other people, but why shouldn't the government offer protection from disease? I just don't get your reasoning. How is it worth the taxpayers money to sustain enough Nuclear Warheads to destroy the world, bunker busters that blow up stuff and are only good for one use, bullets. Yet when it comes to giving poor people food and healthcare, you act as if it is so sacreligous to the foundations of the United States. I mean really think about that, you have no problem with government money going blowing up other human beings, but when it comes to feeding other human beings or giving them healthcare you are opposed? That is a rather Fascist argument. It seems your primary argument against socialism is that citizens will become too dependent on the system. We are all dependent on the system though. That is the point, we all depend on each other for survival, that is how humanity works, together. Whether it is the government or corporations or both who control the basic staples of our society we are dependent on them. It seems that you think we should have essentially an capitalist state that is protected by a huge military. Sure everyone has a responsibility to provide somewhat for themselves, but you do realise that not everyone can work their way up to the top in a total free-market capitalism right? Not everyone can be rich. Someone has to pick up the trash, someone has to do the dirty work. One more thing, "Yes!!!!....and most people, are NOT involved with those deductions, in the first place. To even get the deduction, you need to file a long form, pay taxes or have donated -X- amount." Your argument is that "most" people are not involved with those deductions. And you expand your argument by saying that they don't want to get the tax breaks because they have to fill out a long form. Don't you think that wealthy people who can afford charity are persons somehwat use to filling out long forms, CEO's for example, managers? Actually I think most people have realised long forms are simply a part of life. Any smart person would not turn down a tax-cut because the form was too long. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnd finally, as far a GM is concerned, I would not call that socialism as much as I would consider that corporate welfare, and I don't necessarily support corporate welfare. But just because there is corporate welfare doesn't mean that a total capitalist system is practical or that a mixed economy (socialist/capitalist) is impractical.

When you are talking about socialist services I assume you mean services offered by both state and federal governments. You might want to mention Sewage treatment, the FCC, Fema, Parks and Recreation, EBT/ Foodstamps, Zoning Laws (so your house isn't next to a giant building or in an area where it is unsafe for a house) Airport Security

Its not that I have such a view of American Individualism, its that I would love to believe we don't need restrictions and that charity will help the poor, really I would, but that is simply not the truth. Sure there is a lot of donations businesses and wealthy individuals make to charity, but that is often because of tax incentives. If the government didn't offer tax incentives do you really think the more 'well off' citizens would give as much to charity? And who did well for hundreds of years without anyone getting involved? The people who had to endure work camps during the great depression? The Fascist Capitalists in Germany? You do realise before the progressive movement Corporations and businesses that forced individuals to work ridiculously long hours and gave them barely enough money to survive? In fact many did die. Many got injured and then were laid off. Haven't you ever read Oliver Twist? Or the Grapes of Wrath? Have you ever read your history? I think the difference is I don't believe everyone should have the freedom to do what they want. I don't think that mega-billionaire Joe should be able to buy a 60 mile strip of beach and say, no one can go to the beach unless they give me $30 dollars per day. A capitalist system without regulation is just not practical. For one we live in an ever changing world with finite resources Capitalism is not a system that can be guided or influenced quickly without government influence. Also it is good to keep in mind, we are a social creature, naturally we have always had social laws and governments. This is because we are weak individually, but we are strong as a collective. The truth is a human is nothing without his society. We need a system that can lawfully enforce regulations to protect the whole of society, while using the production of the society to offer services that the society can share. You, I assume, are taking the opposing argument, let a few people benefit from the needs of society, and just safely assume that they give a fair share to charity. Don't get me wrong their are many things that business/ corporations can do effectively. It has to be acknowledged though, that the government has a role in protecting consumers and employees and offering services that can better the society. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnd no, I don't want need any information on the political affiliation of military families, what I am asking is do you support our socialist military? You do realise it is a social service offered to the people, by a portion of all of our tax dollars. The military seems to be the most popular socialist program on the "right". I know it may be because wars offer jobs and help stimulate economic growth. My question is, if we never had the wars and just hired are military to practice all the time: shoot, fly, drive, war games why wouldn't that stimulate the economy just as much? The only difference is the bullets/ explosives would be harming targets and not people, interesting thought.

Yeah, an inevitable result of accepting socialism is that seniors get health care and benefits from the government? Yeah that sounds like a terrible idea, I think an 74 year old grandma who's family is all passed away should have to work for her money like everyone else. (sarcasm). Personal responsibility is lost, but replaced with social responsibility (taxes and regulations). Really when it comes to single payer healthcare, public transportation, and other social programs, there become people who hate paying these taxes or accepting financial regulations. These people can be split up into two categories. They are either economically elite, they are wealthy and worked hard for their money and feel that people shouldn't get free-handouts, however it is often hard for these elite to care for the common man because they have enough money for healthcare, cars, airplane tickets for public transportation. The second group of people who hate taxes and regulations are people who are not economically elite, but are deceived by some of the economic elite, through propaganda. One example of this was the early tea party movement. Even though individuals lose individual economic freedom, the idea is that the majority gain some social, economic freedom. For example, it would be nice if all American's could walk into a hospital when they need medical assistance and not worry about the outrageous bills. There are many other programs that fall along the lines of helping the whole society. Sure their are people scamming the system, as there always will be, but because people are scamming the system, doesn't mean the whole system is bad. Furthermore, with people who need foodstamps or housing, what would you have of them to do without government assistance? Starve, sleep on the street, abandon them until they either die or feel compelled to commit crimes to survive. Then guess what, they end up going to prison, in prison they are then housed and fed by government dollars, and now it is most likely more expensive. One last thing, I notice that many far right capitalists are against nearly all socialist programs, with the exception of the military (atleast not usually openly). Are you a supporter of a socialist military as we have today? Or do you prefer that we leave that to corporations?

They are not really very weird units, they are just units that are man made and the equations bring them out that way. Instead of using m2/s2, which is complicated and doesn't make sense, we use a new unit like joules per kilogram. If you met an alien race, they may know the speed of light as we know the speed of light, but their equations could be much different depending on the units of measurements they have created, the values could be different. It is also good to note, the metric system has values designed to work together easily mathematically.

Taxes can provide social systems that give citizens many freedoms they would not have if these government institutions and taxes did not exist. The Post- freedom to communicate effectively law enforcement- freedom from criminals being able to disrupt your life un-challenged. The highway system- freedom to travel FDA- Freedom to go and buy food without worrying about it being fake, bad, or infected. The military- protects freedoms from external threats. Public Healthcare- freedom to live. All the above are government systems that help protect/ promote freedoms.

I think your right about partisanship, it is really frustrating. I for example would consider myself a leftist, but I don't agree with much of what the democratic party is doing. For example I believe in corporal punishment for some inmates. I am a supporter of second amendment rights. I think the government spends too much money and we could easily cut out budget in many areas while still offering many great public services such as transit, roads, healthcare, and social security. The real problem is military spending (private contractors and an army all over the world) and mysterious spending I think. If you actually look at the budget some of the items seem ridiculous, repetitive, and rather sketchy. Also I think are country is too high on tax breaks. Its seems like people want public services, but are upset when they have to pay for them. Really either way you end up paying for services if its public or private. There are some services that should be offered to everyone though (public transportation, education). Healthcare for example is one of them. It is rather ridiculous to say it is a privilege not a right. I could imagine an alien civilisation looking at us and inferring that we are rather brutal and primitive, because we only care for the people who have enough of this green coloured paper. I think the government needs a role in the economy when it comes to changing direction or implementing new ideas (public healthcare or alternative energies). The private sector is really slow as changing direction (mostly because there are so many variables involved), if they are making money they like to leave the market the way it is, but that is simply just insanity in an ever-changing world with finite resources. The major problem isn't that government is corrupt or that corporations are corrupt, that is too simple. Furthermore, there are examples of foreign governments and corporations that work much more efficiently, effectively, and are less costly than ours. The problem is that our society is corrupt, and it is impossible to have uncorrupted governments and uncorrupted corporations rise from a corrupt society. As far as jackson33 saying partisanship isn't a bad thing, I think it is when it goes to far. For example the democrats destroyed the republicans in the last two elections, they have a near super-majority, yet they can't do hardly anything because of the threat of republican filibuster. It is really ridiculous when the people have spoken and the losing party just forces the government to a halt, because they are so partisan. But I guess the country is still center-right (sarcasm), that is why we have one of the most liberal presidents ever (republican talking point) and one of the most liberal congresses ever (republican talking point). I really have to be honest, republicans talk of all this hope they have for the next election, but I think it is rather over-hyped. The simple demographics do not favour the republicans at all. Hispanic for example are the fastest growing electorate and it seems to me that the republicans have completely isolated them from their party. Republicans have also isolated the African American population, Gay and Lesbian population, and the majority of the Scientific Community. Even if the republicans win, it is not going to be the party it was in the past, they will have to change. For example Scott Brown, he is a republican, but I would not consider him a neo-conservative like the republican leadership of the past (Cheney, Newt, Bush, etc.)

I guess you have a point, the conservative base did see through Mccain, but I would still not call him a progressive. It seems that Mccain alienated every voting block. First by snubbing the far right much of his career then snubbing everyone else but the far right during his campaign against Obama.

I rarely indulge myself in long extended political debates on this forum, largely because I see not point in arguing politics with someone who I am unable to convince to my side . I don't think it is because she aligned herself with a progressive moderate republican, nor would I describe John McCain as progressive. During his campaign he sold out on everything one could consider progressive to try and plead with the base. Furthermore, what does shrinking government really mean. I find it a ridiculous argument just by simply saying she shrunk government, because it begs the question what government did she shrink. If by shrinking the government you mean as cutting local projects (here), then you have to ask yourself if that is a good thing. She herself declared that Alaska needed to become less dependent on Federal Dollars. Since she cut construction money, she cut possible jobs, and cut possible infrastructure re-improvements, which always brings business. I think it would be best to analyze what exactly Palin cut, as opposed to just saying she shrunk the government. As governor yes she had a high approval ranking and she did cut the budget as I cited above. As for relieving the tax burdens, you do realise there is no sales tax or income tax in Alaska, I think they are plenty relieved from tax burdens. However in that same wikipedia article you will find she had numerous ethics complaints. Also I have some serious policy disagreements with her that follow this paragraph, from the same article. "In August 2008, Palin signed a bill authorizing the State of Alaska to award TransCanada Pipelines—the sole bidder to meet the state's requirements—a license to build and operate a pipeline to transport natural gas from the North Slope to the Continental United States through Canada.[121] The governor also pledged $500 million in seed money to support the project.[122] It is estimated that the project will cost $26 billion.[121]" This "On October 10, 2008, the Alaska Legislative Council unanimously voted to release, without endorsing,[148] the Branchflower Report, in which investigator Stephen Branchflower found that firing Monegan "was a proper and lawful exercise of her constitutional and statutory authority," but that Palin abused her power as governor and violated the state's Executive Branch Ethics Act when her office pressured Monegan to fire Wooten.[149] The report stated that "Governor Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates to advance a personal agenda, to wit: to get Trooper Michael Wooten fired."[150] The report also said that Palin "permitted Todd Palin to use the Governor's office [...] to continue to contact subordinate state employees in an effort to find some way to get Trooper Wooten fired."[150][151]" and this "In 2007, Palin supported a 2003 Alaska Department of Fish and Game policy allowing the hunting of wolves from the air as part of a predator control program intended to increase moose and caribou populations for subsistence-food gatherers and other hunters.[124][125] In March 2007, Palin's office announced that a bounty of $150 per wolf would be paid to the 180 volunteer pilots and gunners, to offset fuel costs, in five areas of Alaska. Six-hundred-and-seven wolves had been killed in the prior four years. State biologists wanted 382 to 664 wolves killed by the end of the predator-control season in April 2007. Wildlife activists sued the state, and a state judge declared the bounty illegal on the basis that a bounty would have to be offered by the Board of Game and not by the Department of Fish and Game.[124][126]" That last one is kinda sick to me, hunting wolves from the air. Why not tranquillisation and relocation? Furthermore, hunting from the air is hardly proper or honorable hunting. Here is some more on Sarah Palin when she was mayor of Wasilla, you know, so we can note her executive experience. : As mayor: "$27 million in federal earmarks for a town of 6,700 residents while she was its mayor" here. "The city's long-term debt grew from about $1 million to $25 million due to $15 million for the sports complex, $5.5 million for street projects, and $3 million for water improvement projects. The Wall Street Journal characterized the project as a "financial mess".[64] A city council member defended the spending increases as being caused by the city's growth during that time." here and here. Well, I think it is terribly misinformed to compare the approval rating of President Obama in his second year, to then Governor Palin's 70% approval rating in her second year. Being a popular governor in a state like Alaska, which despite Palin's cuts still receives the largest amount of earmark spending per-capita, is not as challenging as being a popular president while having to deal with being the first black president, inheriting a debt, a broken financial system, a broken healthcare system, an underachieving education system and two wars. Furthermore, to diminish Palin's faults by comparing her to another political figure is not a valid argument. Often these types of arguments lead to arguments essentially saying, well she did bad, but this guy did worse. Lets avoid that. Also I would like to note that I received a tax cut under president Obama, so the tax issue is really a non-issue with me. It is kinda hard to convince me otherwise, since actual results of Obama's "increased government takeover" have effected me in a positive way. As I think I mentioned somewhere else, two of my family members have gotten construction jobs from federal stimulus money. They are re-paving nearly all the major roads in my community. We really needed it too. There are quite a bit of jobs being created in my community because of the stimulus dollars or as you might call it "big government". Well I don't have the time to respond to the rest, but I hope you enjoy my counter-argument, I enjoyed reading yours. I would just like to note it seems that you are in favour of an almost laissez fair government stance?

I play guitar, been playing for a few years now and I would consider myself fairly good. I usually play at least once a day.

I got the email from Jack Sullivan, if you haven't already received it.

The debate between big government vs. small government isn't the issue here. The issue is that Palin does not seem like someone capable of running a government. I base this opinion on the fact that her vocabulary seems smaller than mine, and she couldn't name a major news publication on national television. I mean come on, she dropped out of her job in Alaska and completely sold out. You seem to be attacking my argument by villainizing Obama as "a big government liberal". Platform disagreements are a different issue. I am criticising Palin because she simply does not seem mentally capable of holding an important government position. For a contrast example, I disagree with former Bush Aid/ Secretary Rice, but she seemed like a fairly intelligent capable individual to me. I don't know that most people in the US claim to be independent. As pointed out by data that has been posted in the previous posts. The data you provided also makes a good argument that most voters are independent. That was not the argument I was making though. I was simply disputing the fact that more voters consider themselves conservative than liberal. Using the fact that there is more registered democrats, and that republicans usually fear high voter turn-outs. As far as asking a person if they are conservative or liberal, that is often a misleading poll. Often people consider their lifestyles into their answers as well as political opinion. I for example would consider myself a conservative person, but I tend to have a liberal political opinion. Furthermore, liberal is a completely mis-represtented word now a-days. There are many other words that have been made "bad" by the GOP machine. For example, if you called up a bunch of voters and asked them, "Should we have a post office?"; "Should we have an army?"; "Should we have highways?"; "Do you want food inspectors to inspect your local stores?" the majority of them would answer yes, but then if you asked them, "Do you support socialism?" most would say no. When we are talking about American Politics it is rather ridiculous to bring up foreign news stations. Essentially the cable news/shows in the United States are owned by four companies. AOL Time Warner, General Electric, Viacom and News Corporation. Sure there are local outlets, which are usually outlets for one of the above listed four. Here in New Mexico we have one locally owned station called the CW, but all the other local stations are outlets for one of the previously mentioned. Furthermore you do realise Newscorp has outlets in Asia, India, Japan, Australia, Latin America, Germany, and as you mentioned the UK (sky news).

Jryan, it seem rather unfair to lecture us on the left about reading the news, when it seems as if people who agree with your views support characters such as Palin. Furthermore, on that more people are conservative (politically): Then tell me why does the Democratic Party have more registered voters than the GOP, and why does the GOP seem to historically fear high voter turnout. It is a political common sense that high voter-turnouts favor the Democrats. And as far as broadening one's horizons on news: It is kind of hard to broaden the news content I look at when four companies essentially control the worlds news. That is capitalism at its finest, oligopoly.

I would say that is pretty much correct. Here is what wikipedia has to say: "Genetically modified (GM) foods are foods derived from genetically modified organisms. Genetically modified organisms have had specific changes introduced into their DNA by genetic engineering, using a process of either Cisgenesis or Transgenesis. These techniques are much more precise than mutagenesis (mutation breeding) where an organism is exposed to radiation or chemicals to create a non-specific but stable change. Other techniques by which humans modify food organisms include selective breeding (plant breeding and animal breeding), and somaclonal variation."

It seems to me that the history channel has Nostradamus shows quite often, and Nostradamus featured in many other shows that are not specifically about Nostradamus. I think it is about appealing to the masses. Many people like to here about Nostradamus; it is totally overplayed. I also cannot stand how there seems to be like one group of Nostradamus believers who carry on from show to show, they begin to annoy me. I wish the history channel would do a show called the history of everything and start from the beginning to the end.

This is from wikipedia and I think this may best answer that question: "its square is the constant of proportionality between mass and energy (E = mc2)"