Brainteaserfan

I don't think that there is quite as big a divide as you think. Perhaps we are portrayed that way in other countries. As another poster pointed out, we would need to splinter into several countries. Besides, the two parties aren't usually that different. (The primaries are what count, and allow for far more than two people two be chosen. Year to year people may vote for different people there, and although they may continue voting for the same party, their party may have changed a good deal. ) What do you mean by, do not like outsiders?

The second one looks like slightly dirty quartz to me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:QuartzUSGOV.jpg The first, I have no idea on.

I don't disagree, (ecology isn't my strong suite) but I'm wondering, wouldn't that be interfering with natural selection? If so, how would that be good for us, as I thought that natural selection was good? If not, aren't we just as natural as any other animal?

America is supposed to be a diverse melting pot. We have that in common and are proud of it. We do not want to split, although I'd like to see stronger state's rights. Let's turn the question around. Whatever country you are from, what do all your citizens have in common that is typical for just the inhabitants of your country? Should your country split up? America is supposed to be a diverse melting pot. We have that in common and are proud of it. We do not want to split, although I'd like to see stronger state governments. Let's turn the question around. Whatever country you are from, what do all your citizens have in common that is typical for just the inhabitants of your country? Should your country split up?

I don't think that a civil war would be effective because we have too strong a central government/military. Any "rebellion" would be quickly quelled. We do use nuclear power, just not as much as we should. Cars could travel long distances for almost free, thinking of the heat recently, cheap AC etc. But even if we were in a separate nation that used nuclear power, can you imagine how mad that would make those in other parts of the split US? We might 'contaminate' them! As an American, I feel that we do agree on most issues, however on the few that we don't, only a small fraction of people are represented. Only those in the "middle". Those on the other sides (more than two) feel irked and dissatisfied. I do not want to split, I want stronger state's rights so that more people can be represented and happy.

Lol -sorry about that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

I'm especially interested in how those outside the US view the tea party movement.

Not to defend Mr. Boehner, but.... didn't Obama get us into the Libya war? And then when Mr. Boehner has a budget that doesn't include Obama's (semi-illegal) war, it's somehow his fault?? While Bush was president, he had his fair share of criticism, it's Obama's turn now, and he has started many expensive projects. Obama hasn't been ending Bush's wars, he's been continuing them. http://www.progressive.org/wx031911.html http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Donald-Marron/2010/0320/Hold-on.-Healthcare-reform-will-cost-more-than-1-trillion http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html

How has it affected me? Let's see, how many tax $ would that be..... Friends having to go halfway around the world to fight..... And where I live, I have to arrive 3 hrs before the plane leaves. For the foiled terrorist attempts, I'll quote myself. "Lastly, those foiled terrorist attacks seemed to be due to intelligence which would probably already have been occurring without any extra money being spent on terror. Thus, IMO, the two are unrelated. " The two meaning that terrorist prevention money isn't usually what gets them.

You are right. Dumb me. How many times does it take me to remember not to say every, all never etc. However, that is on the edge of what I would consider a terrorist group. They, IMO, were more of a guerilla group. @zapatos - I don't have much time now, I plan to have more time later to discuss this. However, very quickly... People can change their "upsetness" much easier than they can change whether they are rich. I mean by that that if they had common sense, or a relative did in explaining it to them, then they would not more upset if their loved one was murdered by a terrorist. (sure I'd be upset if a loved one died, but not much more whether blown up than struck by lightning. Of course, neither has happened to me so I guess I don't really know) Yes, I did try looking for a source, but when I google anything with terrorist, many useless links come up. Thanks for the source, I see that there are a few more attacks where the terrorist didn't die than I realized. Lastly, those foiled terrorist attacks seemed to be due to intelligence which would probably already have been occurring without any extra money being spent on terror. Thus, IMO, the two are unrelated. The last bit about defunct organizations I was wondering what they had to do with the rest unless they were caused to be defunct by the war on terror. I didn't see any evidence for that though. Perhaps I didn't do enough following of the links.

When I say 1, 2 etc I mean the 1st group of words, 2 the 2nd etc. 1. Maybe people need to not be so upset then. 2. Why don't you show evidence to the contrary? In every well known terrorist event that I can think of, the terrorist died. 4-5. The difference is that if a cure for a rare disease is found, it will generally save several people's lives each year, or at least raise their standard of living. Historically, when a disease is studied, eventually a cure, partial cure, or something that contributes to medicine is found. Not, IMO, that way with terrorism.

Sea levels rising? Due to we "stupid and selfish" humans? News to me! http://www.sustainableoregon.com/oceanlevel.html

Does it matter to you whether you die by a burst of energy from a bomb or a lightning strike? Either way, you die by a burst of energy. A terrorist's punishment is similar to your last case scenario who may live. A terrorist almost always dies so he has, in essence, already inflicted the death penalty upon himself. IMO, both means of death would be similarly awful.

It matters just like being struck by lightning matters. Lightning kills (there are many estimates, google to see the wide range of estimates) roughly 75 people each year. So, it matters, but not any more than lightning and is just about as hard to prevent as lightning. http://www.weather.gov/om/lightning/medical.htm Note: that's just US deaths.

I think they are worried about religious protests mostly. We could discuss that in the religion forum. Still, the idea of a partly human animal is, IMO, rather scary. Can you imagine an intelligent snake? Makes me shudder!

For american middle and high schoolers: http://soinc.org/

Thanks!!

How do I disable all email notifications? (pm, posts etc)

If you put it somewhere where those on this forum can view it, I'll give you some feedback, but I don't feel very qualified to be "proofing" your paper.

I think though that the more people killed, the more we have that are angry at us, and more that become potential terrorists. Therefore, I think that the war on terror is quite counter-productive. Just because people won't join Al Qaeda doesn't mean that they won't commit acts of terror against the US or other involved nations. I think that will change soon, and that, IMO, very much needs discussion.

We cannot do anything about terrorists though. Even if we make planes much more secure, they will just move to buses, trains, cars etc. More security and getting more afraid of the terrorists is just going to impact the economy more, and generally make things worse.

I can't figure out how to use the quote properly on this little mobile device, so I apologize in advance for that. About the economy. With all the security (which isn't actually that secure, see a 2007 GAO study http://cbsnews.com/storysynopsis.rbml?feed_id=0&catid=3502791&videofeed=36 ), I think that I am more likely to stay at home due to the security rather than the terrorists. I was not trying to decide what was worthy of discussion for you or anyone else, I was saying that IMO, it's not "worth" discussing unless new points are made. As for whether anything will be learned, if you learn that it doesn't need to be discussed that's still learning something. And for accomplishing anti-terrorist discussion, I, nor anyone else here is preventing discussion. Yes, terrorism is a huge evil. However, it largely disrupts things because so much is done to prevent the unpreventable. I think we should ignore terrorism other then to prosecute those living involved. IMO then all of a sudden it will be a much smaller problem.

Maybe I should change the order of the sentence. We should not waste time discussing terrorism because we can't really do anything about it, and there are far, far bigger problems anyway. I have not yet seen any ideas discussing in this thread as to how we should stop/limit terrorism (which by rigney's next post seems to have been his intent for this thread)

And, even if the US did want to, the US doesn't meet many of their requirements. So even if we wanted to, we'd have to make some drastic changes.

His point, simply stated, was that we shouldn't waste our time discussing terrorism because there far worse problems to discuss, and we can't do anything significant to prevent terrorists anyway. If someone is crazy enough to blow themselves and others up, you can't really stop them. At best, intelligence agencies may stop a few.