Saryctos

Do you forget the fountain of blood dedicated to the martyrs of the Iranian army? Suicide ain't so bad it seems... Just destroy it. Don't give them a chance to strike back. You'd have to do this after engaging in talks, so you could make it seem as though you really wanted to talk about it. Then plea to the UN that you want a peaceful resolution to the dispute, and if Iran still wants to do something about it they'd be on the wrong side of the UN as an aggressor. Now that's just my crappy little scenario, I imagine that there are people payed to come up with ideas like this, but more on the side of actually working. I'm sure they can think up something better.

It's not that I'm afraid Iran will use a nuclear bomb. Few people in the world are capable of being that ballsy, or that crazy. The question is what will they do once they have nuclear deterrence?

Away from the coast, Oregon is a lot like what you're depicting.

More grants for solar panels on homes sounds like a very good idea. Because for many people, the turn around time for profit on a solar panel is usually longer than the average ownership period. If the Gov't could make this cost a little easier on the everyday family you would see more solar panels. The cost savings is there, just such a long term that no one does it. Already struggling to pay the mortgage, paying off credit cards, that extra 200$ a month sounds great, but the 15k(not a researched number) start up isn't exactly a crowd pleaser.

Hmmm, is it ironic that the last(current) temperature spike on those graphs just so happens to start around 6000 years ago?

Well, what do you want from 'science'? If there's money to be made, then surely some one would design up a science lab, stock it with people willing to make money, and bam, shit gets done. There's little in the way of preventing actual scientific activities, that I'm aware of. Are you talking about the public's view of science, or is there something actually preventing scientific progression?

The people of these United States tear themselves apart, lie to eah other, are immature children, and often don't care how they're viewed in other countries. The people, simply don't care about grandios principles. They want to live life as best they can afford, and sometimes moreso. You can't expect people to do anything that doesn't benefit themselves in some immediate way, or avoid something they don't want. It's up to the government to legislate changes that make it beneficial for people to help out. Hope in change and you will see none, believe in change and you will be heartbroken. If you want change you have to have more than principles. The willingness to change something isn't enough. What can we offer to actually implement change other than rhetoric*?

Could have all been avoided if Germany would have given us access to "curveball" when we asked for it.

Well, why wouldn't the extremists that want to bomb mecca just hide behind the moderates like they do?

great poll, super best #1, will recomend to all friends

Wouldn't this be the inverse of PC? I certainly understand where Pangloss is coming from. I myself just simply don't post because I really don't want to have to put in the effort to argue for my opinion against so many. The effort it takes just isn't worth it. That's why you'll see me pop in and out throwing little drive-by oneliners*. There've been plenty of times where I'll write up a post, sit there thinking about what parts weren't worded perfectly, and how I'd need to go find a source to make up for it, then just delete my post and move on. This could be part of my own personal shortcomings, but it certainly seems like the board itself has had some influence on it in recent months.

It is this sort of negativity against religion that ruined SFN's philosophy & religion forum. Please try to restrain yourself. I'm Confused to see you call attention to this post, instead of this one by Phil. Seems to me that saying popes can have ravings isn't nearly as negative as commenting on the whole of catholicism.

These two strike me as an odd catch in that list...

Would be nice if health insurance would stop inflating the prices for those of us without insurance that pay in cash...After reading that bill, it seems it will only make it more costly. People enrolled by the national system can only recieve these benefits from public, or non-profit clinicians ONLY. So, that means 0 private physicians will be treating anyone under this insurance plan. I really don't see a national health insurance plan as fixing anything. The problem with healthcare is that it costs a lot of money. Instead of coming up with ways to help people pay it, why not focus on how to reduce the cost of care? I've never been a fan of anything related to insurance. If I don't need it, why pay for it? If I do need it, I'm relying on someone else to pay it for me. This means overall that the insurance companies have to be taking in more money than they spend to keep afloat. Which means people pay out, in total, more money than they need as a whole for health care. More money in a system than is needed just inflates the cost for everyone.

Robots are the solution to Communisms problems, and the demise of Capitalism, one day the automation revolution will come commrades!

The government is just the biggest honey pot in all the land...Who would do what they wanted?

I really can't believe that was the intention of the statement. If Alonzo feels that they put it in there,basically because they could(warning strawman), then that says a lot more about his feeling towards theists in the government than the words of the pledge. By making the comparison to 'white nation', what is he really trying to say? Is he appealing to the 'there's no way we'd let that happen' common sense in people? Trying to show that people are apathetic to religious discrimination, and that's the reason it's allowed to be in the pledge? I can certainly see where he'd be coming from on that point. I really don't think that was the intention when it was written though, but I can definately understand why given that perspective it would cause some unrest. The only solution I can think of that allows both sides to save face is to just nix the whole pledge of allegiance resitation. People for 'under god' get to say they didn't change it, and people who were agains't it are pleased because people won't be saying it at all. After all, I can't believe I haven't heard people complaining about the pledge's existance in the first place, reguardless of wording. Making children pledge allegiance to the state every morning sounds like something that people would scream fascism at. Now I may be missing the mark all together on this issue, probably cause I'm one of those 'it's a non issue' guys. But I'm very interested in hearing about what exactly the problem is, so that it can be resolved, so there's one less "non issue" for me to be caring about. Because I really don't know what the problem is. All I know is that it's got people talking, but what problems is it really causing? What can be done to fix it? Can it even be fixed, or is it one of those issues that just never dies because there's no good compromise?

If it was instead "one nation under Zeus"(or allah) it might be a better example. The distinction being that when you say 'one white nation' you're being exclusive of the other people in the country. But when you say 'under X', you need not necessarily believe in, or be an X. However, if it was that way for a while, the children might ask "but Zeus doesn't exist, why do we still say that?" Because we've been saying it for 100 years, just go with, it's tradition. Oh no, you've brainwashed the little children into saying something they don't understand, the horror!(Political ads never do this...GW commercial much?) I'm sure they'll come around once they hit college and go to a flag burning party and realize that the pledge has no binding authority. Saying the pledge didn't really mean anything more than showing respect for the flag and that which it stood for, you know, a unified nation for freedom, and justice for all.

I can assure you it was not a knee jerk response. I haven't been posting a whole lot in the past few months, but I read this forum every day. If I have something to say in response to the OP on the 2nd page of replys you can assume I've read it a few times.

They sure as hell do. If thousands of polar bears and penguins have to die to protect the life of one US Citizen they'd do it in a heartbeat, and I would support them. But seriously, why is this even worth talking about? Something that screws with radar not being built near radar facilities? sounds pretty damn reasonable to me.

As soon as one finds allah and the other finds out his mother was killed by the other kids cousin, I'm sure they'll still be great friends.

Oddly enough I saw a significant # of Romney TV ads, some rare McCain ads, and absolutely none of the others. Kind of fits the trend eh?

Seems to me that the real weight of this resolution is right here: Probably aimed at things like the 10 commandments infront of certain courthouses and such. Although the american religious history week seems like a sneaky way of appropriating monies to 'specialists in the field of religion' aka churches and clergy.

I'm sure the constant missle attacks won't let the Israelies forget that too easily.

This is not new information. Just a heads up.