zapatos

That's easy... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_New_England_College_of_Osteopathic_Medicine

This is a little creepy, but what you describe sounds a lot like how things are done in North Korea. I hope Kim Il-sung is not up there waiting for us...

I don't think it is a matter of choosing to believe or not. How would one do that? I can't make myself believe. Of course I could say I believe, and go to church and make it look like I believe, but that would not change whether or not I actually believe. Could you choose to believe in the tooth fairy? I am a soft atheist. I believe there is probably no God. (But I could be wrong.)

Great response. Usually when I hear someone say the government is their enemy, they never seem to make the connection that they are part of the government. It's as if the government is some outside force. "It's time to take back our government!" Take it back from whom? Take it back from us? I completely agree that voters can be ignorant, lazy, citizens, and that the worst of the politicians can flourish in that environment. I guess I just don't see it being as bad as you do. People have been complaining that the US is on the fast track to disaster since its inception. I tend to feel that this country can vary between good and bad, but that the framework we are built on keeps us on pretty firm footing. Different situation. Back then we weren't part of the government. If you start a war now, who will it be against? You can't attack "the government". You have to attack someone or something specifically. Who or what would it be? I don't think anyone is saying you shouldn't debate intense ideas; anything and everything. The point is that after I've told you that you are completely wrong, I shouldn't end my argument by suggesting that I'm now going to go load my gun. What has loading my gun got to do with, for example, healthcare? That is the part that I don't believe is necessary.

If you are not familiar with rebound headaches, you should look into them to make sure the otc pain relievers are not part of the problem.

What is with your facination with feces? Perhaps you can consolidate all your feces questions in this one thread.

What type of workers are you talking about? Because if you are talking about migrant farm workers or similar types of unskilled labor, I don't think they are viewing their next job opportunity in terms of what benefits accrue to regions that don't share their socio-political views.

I don't view them as rights given to me by the government. As I said the source of our rights is the Constitution. I agree that the rights were ours to begin with, but I believe the beginning was when we decided what rights we were going to grant ourselves and we spelled it out in the Constitution. Until we wrote it down and actively worked to ensure people could exercise those rights, they didn't exist under our government. When I say that rights are given to us, I am not suggeting that they can only be given to us by government. I include that they can be given to us by us.

Ok, your description of the Constitution as a description of limits, etc. is a better way to describe it than what I said. But of course the flip side of the government's limitations, is my rights. So I'll have to stick with my contention that the source of my rights is the Constitution. I recognize that the federal government cannot by itself take away rights. I was including state governments and should have specified.

The opposition to including the Bill of Rights was fear that it would be taken to mean that you only have those rights listed as far as the government was concerned. But the government can at times clarify other rights you have that were not listed in the Constitution. This is done via other methods, such as the courts, for other rights, such as the right to privacy. What rights do I have that are not given to me, via some type of man made legal, ethical, or social construct?

I am not sure what you mean by the Constitution not being a source of rights. My right to free speech is granted in the bill of rights. Without that declaration I do not have that right. And while the government cannot take away a right under the current constitution, it does have a method to take away rights through the amendment process. Meaning that the source of the right is in the Constitution.

In the examples you use, I see rights given to people by the Canadian Bill of Rights and by the ethical theories of Sartre and Heidegger. And the only useful rights are those that can be guaranteed in some way, such as by law. The rights given to me by Sartre do not mean much if I am somewhere that the rights cannot be exercised.

You make it sound like a right is an inherent human trait. You have no rights that are not given to you.

Can you break that down a bit? Are there specific people in your government, which was elected by your friends and neighbors following the rules set up by the people governed, that you believe fosters harmful designs against you? Or is it the government as a whole, conspiring against you? I'm curious because while I dislike much of what the government does and think some of it harms me, I never think they are intending to do me harm. I believe that whatever Obama (or any elected official) does, he does because he thinks it is the right thing to do for his constiutents and/or country (crooks and their ilk excluded). Have you ever seen an argument at a bar, at home, or even on this site start to escalate out of control? Often the argument isn't that big of a deal but if no one dials it back, it can result in a reaction that is way out of proportion to what the conflict is all about. Violent rhetoric is not necessary and you run the risk of reactions out of proportion if you do nothing to control it. If the people arguing in the bar seem to be getting close to violence you don't need to set rules on what they can or can't say. You just ask them to ease off a bit. Everyone knows what that means, and it doesn't keep anyone from being able to make his point. Well, according to jackson33 there was plenty of violence in the 2010 elections and he expects a great deal more in 2012.

Taught me some new things. Thanks!

Many people learn well from flash cards. Netter is an example.

I think we would be if the person in the white house ended up getting shot. And I think that is the only reason the Palin map is being discussed. People use that type of rhetoric all the time and for the most part no one gets too upset about it. Palin was just the only one unlucky enough to have one of the politicians she was 'targeting' get shot.

Is there a tutorial or something on this site on how to use its features?

Maybe I misunderstood you (or am getting in over my head) but embracing the idea of the big bang because it agrees with dogma is not the same thing as changing dogma. I don't believe the church is convening an ecumenical council to add the big bang to church dogma. So if it turns out the big bang did not occur, then the church is not required to change dogma. Christian dogma includes: "We believe in one God, the Father, the Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all that is seen and unseen." If it turns out heaven and earth was not created in the big bang because the big bang did not occur, then the church can just look for some other evidence of the creation of heaven and earth. The dogma does not change.

People look for God in whatever they see. I don't think the idea of the big bang validating God is any more dangerous than the idea of the big bang validating cosmological theory. You could just as well say "If you require the big bang was explained by cosomological theory, what do you do if and when they find evidence that there was no big bang? Do you say "oops, I was wrong, there is no cosmological theory?" or do you say, well no big bang doesn't mean no cosmological theory no matter what I said last week?" Either way you just move on and try for a better understanding next time.

I didn't see this rule being made. It looked to me like jryan was pointing out the similarities, and swansont was pointing out the differences. It seems reasonable to me to have at least one counterpoint before the differences are dismissed as meaningless. I'm anxious to see how Palin handles the issue of the map. This could be her "Tylenol" moment. I think it will be relatively easy to defuse the controversy if she acknowledges that perhaps this type of rhetoric could be toned down, and that she will lead by example. (Whether she believes it or not.) Then again, if she does the two-step and acts irritated that anyone could even sugggest such a thing, she may go the way of BP CEO Tony Hayward. And based on what I'm seeing so far, I think she liked Tony's approach. http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theticket/20110110/ts_yblog_theticket/giffords-tragedy-could-be-a-defining-moment-for-palin

The map is still on Facebook though... http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=373854973434&id=24718773587

Well she certainly isn't doing herself any favors. Apparently Sarah Palin just took down the map from her website that had Gifford's district in the crosshairs of a rifle. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2011/01/09/2011-01-09_palin_put_a_target_on_her_she_should_have_known_the_dangers.html?r=news

"According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), pedophilia is a paraphilia in which a person has intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children and on which feelings they have either acted or which cause distress or interpersonal difficulty." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia "Pedophilia is a commonly found, but rarely admitted, psychological disorder" "Physical, emotional, sexual and neglect are the major types of child abuse." "Some other common psychological effects of child abuse are behavioral problems, attention problems, anxiety, alcohol abuse or drug abuse, bed-wetting, academic difficulties, concentration problems and chronic sexual behaviors. The abused child suffers from depression, insomnia, eating disorders, dissociative states, fear or shyness, failure to thrive, learning problems, inability to concentrate, panic attacks, malnutrition and repeated self-injury. An emotionally abused child suffers from low self-esteem, paranoia, loneliness, poor relationship with the opposite sex, interpersonal sensitivity, lack of interest in daily activities and sense of dissociation." http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-psychological-effects-of-child-abuse.html How does this fit with your belief that pedophiles don't hurt anyone? A citation is a quoting of an authoritative source for substantiation. You are making many claims and I would like to be able to verify that your claims are valid. Just because you say it doesn't make it so. You are making the claims. I am just asking you to back them up.

Ok. Thanks. I think you are starting to lose some credibility here.