jadote

I don't think this is a case of political correctness really. It's more about Georgia defending it's beliefs from what it feels is an attack by the theory of evolution.

The Patriot Act was passed through US Congress with hardly any debate or dissent after 9/11. The full act can be found here . Some of the powers it gives the government: - The power to access medical, library, and student records without warrant or probably cause, and without informing the person. -Allows for indefinite detention of immigrants. -Allows for 'sneak and peek' searches. This means delayed notification of a search, and no limits on what can be searched. The burden of suspicion has also been lowered. -And the final example I will provide is perhaps the most shocking: Under the USA Patriot Act the Secretary of State has the power to declare foreign or domestic groups a 'terrorist organization" even if the group has not been declared as such. The members of this organization are then declared inadmissible to the US and are deportable, even if they had no knowledge of the designation and regardless of whether their assistance had anything to do with the alleged terrorist activity. Paying membership dues also is a deportable offense. The S of S has the power to declare an organization "terrorist" if they have ever engaged in violent activity. (i.e. PETA, Greenpeace, Operation Rescue). Section 411 of the Patriot Act also violates the first amendment rights of noncitizens. If a lawful resident engages in activities that the SoS determines to be undermining the US effort on counter-terrorism, that resident can be ruled inadmissible to the US upon his return. --Keep in mind these are only a few of the powers that are granted or expanded by this act. By the way, the acronym for the USA PATRIOT Act is "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required To Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism".

Okay here I found it. It is titled "Super Size Me" by Morgan Spurlock. And here is the link. Not good news for McDonald's. Hopefully lots of their customers see this. http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/16393.htm

I heard recently of an independent film where the director ate mcdonalds for an entire month. The effects on his health were devastating, needless to say. If i remember/find it, ill post it here.

Is anyone here against gay marriage? If so, why must we "defend the sanctity of marriage" from this onslaught?

I did judge you from that one post, which was wrong on my part. Since I don't know you and haven't read many of your other posts/threads, I was a bit thrown off and probably missed the sarcasm/cynicism. And don't forget about China's nuclear weapons. Also, China's status as a trading partner probably has some significance here, too.

not supporting war = pro Al-Qaida That is exactly what is wrong with the Bush administration. Unfortunately you cannot fight a war directly against Al-Qaida. Instead, we fought one against Afghanistan. In the process, more civilians were killed. I thought we fought the war to prevent that? However, we have strayed from the topic. Can you seriously condone the war against Iraq? If so, how were they a threat to us?

By speaking of a possible war with North Korea, I was not condoning it. I was merely pointing out the flaws in the Bush administration's foreign policy. I did not condone the two wars that have been fought under Bush, and i'm not agitating for another. I do recognize that America is responsible for much of the world's problems, directly or indirectly, and that we cause more harm than good on the international scale. I'm not sure why you accused me of 'Middle-America McCarthyism' but I can assure you that I am far from it.

I wouldn't call that article 'evidence'. All it says is that they captured an Al-Qaida operative in Iraq. It doesn't provide a connection between Hussein or his government and Al-Qaida. Plus, it says "Hasan Ghul reported directly to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed". That's very vague, and Ghul really can't be described as 'high-ranking' from this article. To quote President Bush, "We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq." Why hasn't the US produced these leaders, or found evidence of the high-level contacts?

Ah, now I see what you are getting at Fafalone, disregard the last post. So you're saying that the link that we based a war on has been established after the war has been fought and declared over by the President?

That's not a cop-out, that's me trying to guess at the reasons Bush presented to the media for starting the war. Notice each statement uses the present and past tense, which I admit is a little confusing. I couldn't decide whether to state it how the administration saw it back then, or as to how they would defend themselves now. Was I wrong? I am still waiting for you to answer how exactly Iraq was a threat to the US

No, but you will here them mangle the English language. http://www.bushwatch.com/english.htm http://www.bushwatch.com/ourfearlessleader.mp3

Maybe if you'd read the article you would see he was captured 'only recently' inside Iraq. That doesn't provide an Iraq-Al Qaida link pre-9/11.

A parrot living in New York has been observed inventing his own words, making humourous comments and displaying a vocabulary of 950 words. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3430481.stm

Atinymonkey, I don't know exactly what you were getting at in your post. If you believe that article is anything else but a facade for the rest of the world to be fooled by, then you are the one who is misinformed. Hopefully reading these articles will change your mind. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/07/19/1026898919587.html http://web.amnesty.org/pages/prk-170104-action-eng http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA240032004?open&of=ENG-PRK

So how exactly were they a threat? If North Korea and Iraq were of equal threat, and it was of vital importance to wage a preemptive war, why has the regime in North Korea allowed to remain? You basically said we put off stopping North Korea because it is too difficult. Does that mean we protect ourselves from threats, as long as its not too dangerous? I think it means that Bush didnt want thousands (instead of 500) of dead Americans being sent home, and ruining his chances of a second term. Then again, he may just be playing it smart, and he may be planning to invade North Korea in his second term. But if that's true, he's let the US be threatened for quite a long time for his own political agenda.

Fafalone, explain to me how Iraq was more of a threat to us than North Korea? Especially in retrospect when we have found no link between Iraq and Al-Qaida and no WMD?

In a theoretical situation, do you believe that if Iraq or Afghanistan had had a million-man army and a nuclear program, that the US would have invaded?

Nobody here has said they were against the attack on Afghanistan, we're just suspicious of our government. Especially when our two main objectives for going to war were finding WMD and Osama Bin-Laden, and neither of those things have been accomplished. Maybe you could use 'factual evidence' and 'common sense' to tell us why the people suffering under Hussein and the Taliban are liberated while people in Africa continue starving and suffering under warlords? Also, can you tell us why Saudi Arabia's regime remains when their rulers are just as bad as Saddam was?

As I understand it, the Us's war on Iraq was waged for three reasons: 1. Saddam Hussein is/was a tyrant, guilty of atrocities. 2. Iraq has/had WMD. 3. There is/was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaida. Obviously no sane person could argue against reason #1, but seeing as no WMD (as of yet) have been found and even more importantly no Iraq-Al Qaida link has been discovered, President Bush has set a dangerous standard for the US as the world's police force. The US is now responsible for invading any country found to have: 1. A tyrant, guilty of atrocities. 2. WMD. Using these guidelines, it is the US's duty to invade North Korea. Not only do they have a maniacal tyrant (probably worse than Hussein), they also have a much more advanced nuclear program. So, one might ask, why isn't the US invading North Korea? The answer: North Korea doesn't have oilfields. The US, under this current administration, won't fight a war unless there's money to be made or an economic interest to be saved.

Well, here are the hard facts on income taxes. The real rate from 2001 is actually lower than either you or fafalone predicted.

Trickle-down economics has brought us such great wonders as the '81 tax cut by Ronald Reagan. Those cuts quadrupled the national debt, thanks to Reagan also demanding a military build-up. Sound familiar? Thanks to the Reagan cut, taxes were later increased, and most of the increases fell on the lower- and middle- classes. Bush's economic plan promises to do the same with his tax cuts and his current (and almost certainly future) war. As a result, our deficit will grow. One day we will be sorry we amassed the enormous debt, and our economy will come crashing down. But don't worry, you'll probably be dead by then.

It never ceases to amaze me that more middle- and low-income voters have yet to realize that the Republican Party's trickle-down economics place most of the tax burden on their shoulders. Why should corporations be exempted from high taxes? They make money off of American citizens yet it is us who support the government they operate under. This, coupled with the fact that many companies are now sending jobs overseas to turn a profit at the expense of the average American should enrage the non-wealthy. And yet we elected GW and sent his colleagues into office at mid-terms. Americans must like getting used.

This is news to me. If you were correct in this statement, the future of mankind would be very bleak indeed, as many times beauty and intelligence are in inverse proportion (at least in today's standard of beauty). No two same people hold the same concept of beauty, so calculating a person's chance of reproduction by physical appearance would be very difficult.

Occam's Razor is a principle that was stated by William of Ockham. It basically says that principle gives precedence to the simpler of two alternatives, (i.e. of two theories the simpler should be preferred)