DrDNA

Why should any tax unduely burdon people of Polish descent?

How so? The poor spend a much larger percentage of their income on food, medicine, and housing. Most (all?) proponents of a national sales tax agree that these should be excluded. For example, in my state, food (unless eaten in a restuarant) is excluded from the state sales tax. In a perfect world, there would be no loopholes. Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world. The income tax is nothing more than a tax on income that can not be creatively hidden and disguised and it has proven to be MUCH easier to hide and disguise income than sales. To my knowledge, very few people are avoiding the state sales taxes. A few are able to cheat with boat or car purhcases by going out of state, but that could be fixed.

Actually, in the Jewish Torah and Judges 1 and Numbers 33 of the Christian Bible, it is clearly stated that the Jews smote the Canaanites, Hitites, Emorites, Hivites, Jebusites, Girgashites, and Prizites (often collectively called Canaanites) and drove them off of the land called Israel. So, if your are going to base your argument on who was there first, the Bible and Torah as historical documents indicate that it was not the Jews. PS: Dear moderators. I'm absolutely not trying to take a stand one way or the other based on theology. Just to clear up the historical facts.

I know, I know..... Because, if effective, it drives down profits for KBR H, Boeing, Honeywell and a bunch of other corporate entities that profit from the opposite of peace. I know pacifists and I ain't one of em by any way, stretch, or means so trust me when I say this isn't personal. But exactly what is wrong with being a "pacifist"?

For the record, I haven't forced anybody to jail and do not have that capacity. So who is this "you" that is "forcing" people into jail? Me? What people are being forced into jail? I must say, it is amazing how quickly those who do not agree with abortion are vilified. I don't understand what you mean. Who is to follow who, where and why ? "Full term" is generally accepted to be 36 to 42 weeks (some consider it to begin closer to 38). You really believe that anything less than 36 weeks should be considered garbage can fodder? What your point is here is not clear to me at all. An egg is not fertilized. Egg -> Egg is fert -> zygote -> embryo -> fetus I'm pretty certain that most people don't have a problem with unfertilized eggs. I certainly do not. Are you refering to a zygote, a fetus and/or an embryo?? What is "real" genocide? "bad"?

I have seen those glucose meters on sale a Walgreens for free (with instant rebates). You might want to check there and Osco or CVS. That sounds like a heck of an investment.

Oh. No absolutely not. Sorry. My Hmmm....was intended to be more like....."Hmmmm....this (the oath and "law") is a little different than *I* recall"

There are a number of reasons. A vaccine just needs to be an antigen to boost or prime your immune system so that when the real thing comes along, it can recognize it and is already prepared go to work and eleminate it quickly. This is because the immune system is somewhat latent in its ability to attack new things that it has not seen before. Vaccines are generally attenuated (alive similar strains but not the kind that is severly pathogenic), dead ("killed") pathogens, particles from the pathogen that cannot reproduce, or some sort of toxic product from the pathogens. One famous problem that occured early on with the Salk vaccine for polio was that in 1955, 44 people contracted polio after being vaccinated with "Killed" polio viruses. There was a problem in the process that "killed" the live viruses used for innoculation. And then there is the issue that a compound that metabolizes to ethylmercury has traditionally been used in vaccines as a perservative. Another concern is that live-attenuated viruses can revert to the pathogenic form. And then there is the concern that the cells used to make the vaccine can become infected with another virus and the vaccination with simply infect people with these. There are many vaccine controversies and even conspiracy theories. Someone is always trying to link vaccines with one disease or another, one big one is autism. Chelation therapy is where they give you a chlelating agent like EDTA to bind up and flush out heavy metals. It is a viable therapy for acute heavy metal poisoning, but its widespread use for other conditions is disputed.

Interesting. Do you know how the inability to remove mercury was diagnosed and what causes it? I've never heard of this type of thing before. I assume that it also includes problems with other heavy metals? Do you know if people that have this undergo "chelation therapy"...which I always thought was quackery...but of course could be wrong...? Any chance you know of a link or reference maybe? Thanks!

Lol. I agree. I hope Hillary doesn't see this.....she'll get stuck in it like a hair in a biscuit.

I just thought that it might be useful for everyone (including moi) to review what the "Hippocratic Oath" or the "Hippo Law" actually is, as it pertains to, and since it is being being referenced in, this debate regarding Euthanasia. I thought that it was relevant to the conversation. You disagree? If, so please accept my apology.

No....bu... Agreed. The obvious conclusion is the tax on income is not fair. Simpler almost always equals better. Most, excluding perhaps those that directly or indirectly benefit from or profit off of unecessary complexity, would agree that better = fairer in the case of taxes. Tax on goods seems like it should and could be the most simple.

Hmmmmm..... Quote: "THE OATH OF HIPPOCRATES I SWEAR by Apollo the physician and AEsculapius, and Health, and All-heal, and all the gods and goddesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this stipulation-- to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the Art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to disciples bound by a stipulation and oath according to the law of medicine, but to none others. I will follow that system of regimen which, according to my ability and judgement, I consider for the benefit of my patients, and abstain from whatever is deleterious and mischievous. I will give no deadly medicine to any one if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion. With purity and with holiness I will pass my life and practice my Art. I will not cut persons labouring under the stone, but will leave this to be done by men who are practitioners of this work. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and, further, from the seduction of females or males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever, in connection with my professional service, or not in connection with it, I see or hear, in the life of men, which ought not to be spoken of abroad, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all such should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this Oath unviolated, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of the art, respected by all men,in all times. But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot. THE LAW OF HIPPOCRATES Medicine is of all the arts the most noble; but, owing to the ignorance of those who practice it, and of those who, inconsiderately, form a judgment of them, it is at present far behind all the other arts. Their mistake appears to me to arise principally from this, that in the cities there is no punishment connected with the practice of medicine (and with it alone) except disgrace, and that does not hurt those who are familiar with it. Such persons are the figures which are introduced in tragedies, for as they have the shape, and dress, and personal appearance of an actor, but are not actors, so also physicians are many in title but very few in reality. Whoever is to acquire a competent knowledge of medicine, ought to be possessed of the following advantages: a natural disposition; instruction; a favorable position for the study; early tuition; love of labour; leisure. First of all, a natural talent is required; for, when Nature leads the way to what is most excellent, instruction in the art takes place, which the student must try to appropriate to himself by reflection, becoming an early pupil in a place well adapted for instruction. He must also bring to the task a love of labour and perseverance, so that the instruction taking root may bring forth proper and abundant fruits. Instruction in medicine is like the culture of the productions of the earth. For our natural disposition, is, as it were, the soil; the tenets of our teacher are, as it were, the seed; instruction in youth is like the planting of the seed in the ground at the properseason; the place where the instruction is communicated is like the food imparted to vegetables by the atmosphere; diligent study is like the cultivation of the fields; and it is time which imparts strength to all things and brings them to maturity. Having brought all these requisites to the study of medicine, and having acquired a true knowledge of it, we shall thus, in travelling through the cities, be esteemed physicians not only in name but in reality. But inexperience is a bad treasure, and a bad fund to those who possess it, whether in opinion or reality, being devoid of self-reliance and contentedness, and the nurse both of timidity and audacity. For timidity betrays a want of powers, and audacity a lack of skill. They are, indeed, two things, knowledge and opinion, of which the one makes its possessor really to know, the other to be ignorant. Those things which are sacred, are to be imparted only to sacred persons; and it is not lawful to impart them to the profane until they have been initiated into the mysteries of the science. THE MODERN OATH OF HIPPOCRATES (Please read the "Physicians' Charter," a new Charter on medical professionalism) One version, approved by the American Medical Association, is as follows: You do solemnly swear, each by whatever he or she holds most sacred: That you will be loyal to the Profession of Medicine and just and generous to its members. That you will lead your lives and practice your art in uprightness and honor. That into whatsoever house you shall enter, it shall be for the good of the sick to the utmost of your power, your holding yourselves far aloof from wrong, from corruption, from the tempting of others to vice. That you will exercise your art solely for the cure of your patients, and will give no drug, perform no operation, for a criminal purpose, even if solicited, far less suggest it. That whatsoever you shall see or hear of the lives of men or women which is not fitting to be spoken, you will keep inviolably secret. These things do you swear. Let each bow the head in sign of acquiescence. And now, if you will be true to this, your oath, may prosperity and good repute be ever yours; the opposite, if you shall prove yourselves forsworn. From "Harvard Classics Volume 38" Copyright 1910 by P.F. Collier and Son. This text is placed in the Public Domain, June 1993." End Quote.

Hmmmm......it occurred to me that you MIGHT be asking if embryos have souls. If so, a more philosophical type thread might be more appropriate. And an intreging question it be.......along with what is a soul of course.....and that MIGHT make it out of bounds as a topic..... If not, never mind In either case, good luck.

"Rightous" how? Other than from a biblical perspective..... "Where they belong"....how so? Have you ever made a serious attempt to look at this from the outside in or from the "other" side's point of view?

I hate having to go back and forth to different web sites to understand what is going on, so here are the reasons from the link.... Quote "Why destroy the Earth? 2005-08-08 *2007-01-20 If you've decided to have the Earth destroyed, then you clearly already have your motive and don't need my advice. But if, for whatever reason, you're seeking to get inside the mind of the planet-killer, then read on. Why destroy the Earth? Why, you maniac, WHY? Because it is there A response first given by George Mallory after being relentlessly questioned as to why he desired to become the first man to climb to the highest point on Earth, the peak of Mount Everest. It did for him and it can do for you. Who needs a reason? The doing of the thing is its own reward. To further science You'll be employing the scientific principles of [whatever method you use] on a greater scale than ever before. You'll have recording devices observing the event from all angles and on all wavelengths. The telemetry taken from the destruction of the Earth will reveal more about the universe, and science, and the Earth itself than anybody can possibly imagine! Isn't that worth it? Special effects no longer satisfy me One can't argue with the fact that the total annihilation of an object of the Earth's size is going to be pretty spectacular however it happens. If you are the kind of person who likes explosions and implosions and other destructive events, then this is going to be the biggest you're likely to experience in a lifetime. To wipe out humanity/overthrow the evil Human Empire If you can destroy the Earth at relatively minimal cost and in an extremely short space of time - short enough, that is, that nobody can escape after they see the death-blow coming - then these might be valid motivations. Humanity threatening your stranglehold over every planet in the galaxy? Humanity GOT a stranglehold over what you believe should be a free galaxy? Just not much of a people person? Job done. Obviously this is huge overkill: but if you're evil, that's part of the business. As a demonstration of my power Should definitely keep the other misbehaving border worlds in line. Obstructing my view of Venus Can I just point out here that this is a singularly stupid reason to destroy a whole planet. As viewed from Mars, both the Earth and Venus are absolutely tiny. Not only is it highly unlikely that all three would EVER line up so perfectly that the Earth obstructs Venus, after a few hours they would have moved apart and Venus would be clearly visible again. To make way for a hyperspace bypass Surely a hyperspace bypass would pass through hyperspace, not reality? Hate planets; Mercury, Venus already destroyed Earth is unique in the universe. CONFORMITY MUST BE ENFORCED Euthanasia Earth is old and obviously in pain; it should be put out of its misery. To make a point Anything along the lines of "They laughed at me at the Academy, I'll show them, I'll show them all!!" would fall under this category, though it could also be pegged as a psychological reason, below. Psychological reasons "Hate world, world hates me" would fall under this category. So would insanity. God told me to do it Religion is regarded by many as the most dangerous weapon of any kind. Certainly its damaging effects on human history cannot be overstated. People will do anything, anything, up to and including the torture and murder of millions of people if they sincerely believe, however misguidedly, that whatever deity or deities they believe in are on their side. It doesn't matter if you really believe God wants you to destroy the Earth. If your minions buy it, they may never be stopped, even after you're long dead. Faith is powerful. By accident Obviously there's a limit to how big an accident can get. Clearly one cannot steer many tiny asteroids on fly-by passes of Earth and carefully move it out of orbit and off sailing into Jupiter by accident. But perhaps some horrible scientific accident could set off a rapidly expanding true vaccuum decay zone kinda thing, or worse. Or maybe you could try to steer the Earth past the Sun, and get your numbers slightly wrong, or have a rocket fail on you. Be creative and the kinds of accidents I'm talking about here seem more and more plausible. Still. Pretty difficult to make an accident this big. To prevent some greater disaster I can only guess at what sort of situation would require the Earth to be sacrificed, but you know, if it arose, who could say no? One suggestion is: prophylaxis. If the Earth becomes contaminated with some agent - a virus, perhaps, either biological or technological (i.e. grey goo nightmare) - and that agent threatens other worlds, then it may prove that the only way to wipe the threat out permanently is to destroy the Earth with it. Planning to construct something more useful out of it This is probably the most plausible reason on this list. It's fine, of course, to destroy such a useful planet if you're planning to render the material thus liberated into a more useful form - for example, part of a Ringworld, or many, many Banksian Culture Orbitals, or still more Halos, or unimaginable quantities of smaller space-going habitats. A Culture Orbital, for example, is a fourteen-million-kilometre-wide spinning ring, with people living on the inside edge, held there by centripetal acceleration. Its habitable surface area is immensely more than that of Earth, but the material required to create one is much, much less than that needed to make a whole planet. You could trade the Earth for millions or billions of times as much room. Fair? I think so. Counter-arguments There are of course much more convincing arguments for NOT destroying the Earth. These include: It would be very, very difficult to do ...and expensive, and time-consuming, and have relatively little payoff. What's the point? Why bother? Earth is valuable Earth is an important wildlife reserve. It contains samples of an amazing number of different species of animal. To destroy the Earth would be to render extinct all of these species. Earth contains huge amounts of unique habitat. There is nowhere else in the known universe that e.g. humans can live comfortably. Earth also has vast untapped resources of air, water, and minerals. Earth has sentimental value This is where a lot of us grew up, after all. You'd get into trouble Murder and property destruction would be the most prominent charges brought against you in the aftermath." End Quote

Please define "necessary".

It is degassing the solution.... It works very well for that purpose and is often used to degas solvents.

What's wrong with morphing?

You know, this is the first presidential primary season in a long time that I can honestly say that I don't like ANY of these guys or the gal in the primaries, it usually has to get down to the final 2 (or 3 in rare cases) when I can state that......except Paul, but I admit that he stands a snowball's chance in hell. But, as long as Hillary and Rudy (my 2 least favorite) are sucking mud, I'm pretty happy at this point. Man, I can't believe Maverick is doing so well in NH. I'm speechless.

Chill out. I'm not here to change anything. But I am here to learn and to engage in intellectually stimulatiing endeavors' like this ............. Here are some defs of suicide from Websters online. They may or may not fit my statements above, but so be it. I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep if'en they don't. Main Entry: 1sui·cide Pronunciation: \ˈsü-ə-ˌsīd\ Function: noun Etymology: Latin sui (genitive) of oneself + English -cide; akin to Old English & Old High German sīn his, Latin suus one's own, sed, se without, Sanskrit sva oneself, one's own Date: 1643 1 a: the act or an instance of taking one's own life voluntarily and intentionally especially by a person of years of discretion and of sound mind b: ruin of one's own interests <political suicide> c: apoptosis <cell suicide> 2: one that commits or attempts suicide adjective Date: 1773 : of or relating to suicide; especially : being or performing a deliberate act resulting in the voluntary death of the person who does it <a suicide mission> <a suicide bomber> Main Entry: 3suicide Function: verb Inflected Form(s): sui·cid·ed; sui·cid·ing Date: 1841 intransitive verb : to commit suicide transitive verb : to put (oneself) to death Edit: So, it appears that since apoptosis is considered suicide, what a bee and an ant do to protect its hive or colony should also be considered suicide, and it looks like I am wrong....oh my God However, I do still believe that killing yourself knowingly and unknowingly and/or for a percieved bigger cause are different. But that may be a different debate.....

Personally, I think that libertarian ideals are GREAT (as did the founding fathers apparently). But unfortunately, they seem to lack the mass appeal that is necessary to win most primaries or general elections in this day and age.

I'll admit that I am not an expert in this field, but I don't think what a bee does in protecting its hive could be considered suicide in the same sense....the bee is simply doing what is best for the preservation of its collective and dying appears to be an indirect consequence of that act. Bees and ants (and similar organisms) are perhaps uniquely selfless in their actions. Besides, I wonder if the bee even considers or even knows that its actions will result in its own death. Also, are the soldiers that die protecting their units commiting suicide? Even if they actually know full well that their actions may lead or will lead to their own death.

The sound waves simply loosen the bonds that hold the material (dirt in this case) in place.....by vibration.....as the ancient proverb states.....shake it up baby, twist and shout....shake it hard and long enough and it will come loose. Read please...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultrasonic_cleaning

The things we do for oil.....it really is the whore of babylon....