john5746

I'm not a fan of Al Sharpton - I generally don't like him bringing so much pressure to bear on little towns. It has the danger of resulting in mob rule. But, in this case, something had to be done. I'm not clear on all of the details, but it is clear that the cops told him to not pursue and he did. Once he decided to pursue, unless this guy just killed or seriously injured someone, I think he is at least responsible for manslaughter.

The facts seem to be really irritating you, sorry it bugs you so. If you also compare states, you will see similar results. States like Mississippi, with higher numbers of poor people, poorly educated, less access to healthcare and more income disparity have worse quality of life than states like Massachusetts. americashealthrankings TED TALKS Even if the US adopted the best system, we still wouldn't have top tier results. I think we would have to improve income and educational disparities to really get near the top.

I would suggest getting him involved(with you) in something like a community center course on evolution or just about any science. Possibly a yoga class or something that gets both of you involved with non-Jehovahs and people with open minds. I doubt a direct approach will work - think outside of the box and try to enjoy yourself with him in something that is enlightening. Visit a science museum? I would not make the goal to convert to atheism, I would make the goal to open the mind and improve critical thinking. If you just ditch religion without improving critical thinking, I think you miss the point. The path is the goal.

More accurately, you don't have a problem with contradiction, since you don't follow logic. I doubt if this is really the case - maybe just in your head when you are typing on the internet. But practically, your everyday actions, I bet you do follow logic for the most part. I doubt you wait for revelation to feed you or make devices work. Science and logic deliver the goods that you enjoy all around you. It just doesn't give you the warm fuzzies, which is very important - I don't discount them. I get my warm fuzzies from interacting with my family or contemplating the vastness of the universe. Can you get the warm fuzzies without trying to fork universal explanations into them and onto others? Maybe some people can only get the fuzzies by convincing others into a group think?

Of course we don't fight with Al Qaeda and of course they aren't our friends. They may oppose a dictator so that they can get their way, but that doesn't mean we must oppose freedom in order to fight Al Qaeda - that is a losing battle, imo. Each dictator has made the same argument. Everytime there is unrest, people start linking Al Queda in the mix, as if this alone is reason to back the dictator. Support democracy and freedom - the people might not choose a government we like, but that's a chance worth taking, assuming we get involved at all. Is that our two choices? ask nicely or bomb them? Only if they are non-muslim, then it is OK. Yeah, that's crazy. Its the 21st century, they should shoot them instead.

If al-Qaeda supports eating beans everyday, does that mean we must outlaw them? Anyways, I hope we find something else to do rather than bombing. Seems that has been the answer too often. If they attack us, we bomb them. If they try to make nukes, we think about bombing them. If they fight against themselves, we bomb them

That means he is better than someone like Romney, who had wealthy parents? I think this video is informative in relation to how important inequality is to social well-being.

it does get kind of fuzzy, because it depends on what you do with it. White rice and corn are really shitty carbs. "Food grain" means corn grown to feed cattle, which isn't even good for the cattle. Wheat can be healthy, until you pulverize and bleach it beyond recognition. Would be nice to have brussel sprout, carrot and mustard green subsidies, if we are going to have any. Whole grains would be oats, buckwheat, quinoa, millet or whole wheat. Maybe keep wheat and brown rice.

We could start by taking farm subsidies for rice, wheat and corn(food grain) and moving that towards healthier options. Could also remove sales tax on veggies, fruit and whole grains? That's state and local tax, not federal. To directly impact poor people, you could have a food stamp surcharge on unhealthy foods and a bonus on healthy foods, i.e you buy one get one free on lettuce, but you get charged more for buying chocolate puffs. That might cost too much though, I mean we have to save so that we can go invade Iran. Well, sometimes obese people cannot be covered, or they have higher rates. Living healthy will result in lower medical costs, but it would be nice to more directly tie choices to costs.

Santorum fail Yeah, will be interesting if this guy can last past Florida. He actually does a good job working the crowd and making his stupid argument appear valid. It would be nice if we had a presidential contender who actually was pro gay marriage and would debate this topic. I would have liked to share my opinion: 1) I think marriage is a core of a great society, providing a solid foundation to create families. 2) Extending this core to same gender couples will increase the number of stable families, improving society. 3) Marriage has evolved through time, it hasn't always been between only two people and was not liberally applied regardless of race and creed. 4) Extending marriage beyond two consenting adults is not being proposed, although in my opinion, I think more than two make divorce even more problematic and therefore should not be considered.

Saying God is everything with no application is really meaningless. At best, it just wastes time and disk space. Maybe it provides something to meditate upon, whatever. When people try to invoke a God with intention, wants, needs - when they claim this entity wrote a book or spoke to them or others and that they have inside knowledge and we should have it as well, that is when problems can arise. To be truly tolerant, we shouldn't be offended when someone doesn't accept our opinion

Well, the Bill of Rights doesn't say we are all equal, just that we all have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I would rather have it stated that these rights are provided/protected by the citizenry because we all enjoy them, rather than imply if comes from a god, but whatever. Of course we are born with different abilities and access to different resources, etc. I agree with you that tolerating intolerance, for example can be awful. I think almost everyone believes that certain cultures and beliefs are superior to others. The difficulty is in application. So, while we may not approve of dictators, certain aspects of China or treatment of minorities in certain areas, that doesn't mean we should feel superior to the people under those systems, discredit all aspects of the culture or rush in and bomb the problems away.

Couldn't help myself. Excellent video by Rachel Maddow

Well, if you really dive into it, you'll find the definition of a christian to be hard to pin down. You will also see inconsistency even within the same person as to who is or is not a christian. I have heard some claim Catholicism isn't christian, yet when listing numbers of followers, will gladly count them. A more interesting question is why is it so important to be considered Christian? My answer: It is a lazy way to exclude or include a person for whatever reason.

Not really serious here, but was thinking the other day - If most of the US debt is held by Americans, how much is held by the top 10%? I couldn't find any data on that, but would be nice if most of it was indeed held by the top 10%. Then, we could just rip up those IOU's and thank them for their sacrifice. So, maybe the far right was almost correct - maybe the answer would be to default on our debt - but only the portion held by the wealthy. It is only fair, they have benefited the most from the bailout of the financial system. They are winning the monopoly game so readily that many are ready to throw the board and walk away. Maybe this would help?

My experience with small baptists churches in the south, most have probably never met a Jew in real life, that they know of. In fact, most have probably never talked to anyone of a different faith from Christianity for more than a couple of minutes. Their idea of a different religion is Methodist or Presbyterian or the "other" Baptist church across the mountain. Catholics are a little better than Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses, but they aren't real Christians. I'm sure they would be fine with Jews, as long as they accept Christ as their savior. LOL

Most likely not. However, as I said, Romney is at least possible. During the general, he will come to the middle. He is already somewhat moderate on the social issues and at least acts like a grown up. Is there an X that would make you vote for Obama? I'm happy with what Obama has done given the circumstances. If we could eliminate or at least control the filibusters, I think a majority democrat congress would do pretty well - except they wouldn't cut the deficit as quickly as I would like, if at all. Of course you disagree, that's fine.

Because anything else would be unpatriotic! Country first! It really comes down to whom I trust going forward - Obama or choice X. I really like Obama, his style, many of his ideas. But, our political system is broken, so at this point, I think it would be better to have all republicans or democrats(although I think liberals are more likely to compromise). So, I will vote straight ticket from now on. And it will be straight democrat until I hear tax increase coming out of the mouths of republicans. It is a shame, because I don't think the democrats will cut entitlements as much as they need to be cut, but I will not budge on that issue.

Not that I care too much, but I think Romney will be the Republican candidate. I think the Rupaul, Bachman and Perry split the fringes. Of course, I picked Pawlenty back in May, so... I doubt Pawlenty will be picked as VP. Maybe Bachman, depends on how well she does. I would like to see Obama get another term, but Romney or Huntsman are the only Republican candidates that I think wouldn't run the country back in the ditch too far if they were elected.

a question I would like to ask in the republican debates - how much lower should income and capital gains taxes be in order to improve the economy, give me a %. or Should we have a moratorium on taxes(for those making above $1 mil), worker protections and epa laws for 2 years to really get this economy going? It would be fun to see how low they would go. I realize the polished guys like Romney would dance around the question, but Cain did say 0% capital gains tax in the last debate. Yeah, Steve Jobs and his ilk would basically pay no taxes.

He is wrong to state it in such a poor way. We've had KKK, skinheads, rednecks, etc. so I guess one could argue anytime people become violent or hateful, they are "acting white". He is condemning a race based on the acts of some in a culture. Just as you can condemn Nazi's or the KKK without blaming the whole white race, you can also do that in this case.

This song could apply to any President. All Presidents complain about problems left from the previous administration and make promises to make things better. I do think Obama has much more to gripe about than Bush did, though. It is interesting how many people are much more tolerant of slow progress in regards to wars as they are in response to the economy, yet these same people claim to believe government can't really do much with the economy. What was Bush doing after the first two years?

Can anything really be fully accomplished and can anything be done without some force? I could replace national with lawn or human, etc. and come up with a similar question.

After reading both speeches, Obama did take some credit for this mission, but as Swansont mentioned, taking it out of context makes it appear egregious. But, perhaps worse is giving the appearance that the two missions are the same. Obama should take credit - this was a mission out of the bounds of the current war, it required his direct involvement. I don't think Bush had to approve troop movements and raids within Iraq once they had invaded. He couldn't even say that was his primary goal at the time, because WMD was the primary goal, not removing that idiot. But, now that is seen as one of the main justifications for the Iraq war - the ouster of Saddam. They took plenty of political capital from that.

OK, we are arguing the definition. I think property rights are a foundation of a free market. I include intellectual property as a property right. I think this is necessary to have much of a market in the first place - at least ones that require any innovation. Maybe I am wrong. Is there an accepted definition out there that excludes it?