Ten oz

The bulk of people fighting in both WWI and WWII were religious. So while religion may not have been the cause it did speak to the hearts of those involved. When it spoke "stop" apparently wasn't what it said. One of the many problems I have with religion is the implication that humanity is a finished product. God created man and we are that creation.There are paths that can be walked where one either is living as God intended or not but humanity is basically prefect as created by God. Ironically the attitude is the antithesis of being humble. Humans are not a finished product, are not the end goal of evolution, weren't created in the image of a divine immortal deity, and the earth along with all life on it wasn't placed here to be used however we choose. The senses of entitlement, self righteousness, supernatural heritage, pedigree, ownership, superiority, and birth right that many major religions teach has prove very destructive. It seems obvious to me that anyone with with the above stated feelings beat into them sense childhood would view war as a neccessary tool. Not merely war but extermination. God himself in most major religions will one day exterminate all those who have not followed. God is very intolerant. God word is thee word and hades awaits for those who question. No surprise at all people who believe such God would find a time and reason to kill.

Eisenhower passed the Federal Highways act in 1956. One of the biggest govt public works projects ever in this country. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/96summer/p96su10.cfm Eisenhower advocated to congress for Universal Healthcare. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=10399 Eisenhower warned of the "Military industrial Complex". http://www.npr.org/2011/01/17/132942244/ikes-warning-of-military-expansion-50-years-later Yes the party is very different today. However you said that the Tea party can not be compared to Reagan or Eisenhower when the truth is Reagan can not be compared to Eisenhower. Reagan deregulated the Banks, slashed taxes championing trickle down economics, and was the Military industrial complex's best friend. Forget govt provide Health Reagan closed all the community mental hospitals. http://www.salon.com/2013/09/29/ronald_reagans_shameful_legacy_violence_the_homeless_mental_illness/ Bush 41, Dick Cheney, Anthony Scalia (first federalist Judge of supreme court), Paul Wolfowitz, etc, etc, etc were all part of Reagan's administration. Reagan armed the Taliban and Armed Saddam Hussein. The Reagan Revolution as many Tea Party crazies like Michelle Bachman calls it is the reason why there is a Tea party today. Reagan was that shift in the party. That is a interesting qoute from Kennedy but I think if you start looking at actually policy Kennedy was more in line with the Democratic party of today than Eisenhower, Nixon, or Ford were in line with the Republican party of today.

I don't think CGI looks real at all. When films use too much of it I feel as though I am watch a cartoon. As you said filmmakers often seem to get away from the story being told to emphasize the CGI. Once heard a special effects guy say something to the effect of "no matter how good the CGI it will always be something fake. While no matter how bad the costume, puppet, or model is it will always be something real".

No disagreements there.

When I posted "unique" I was referencing the way people who are completely sitting on the outside looking in view it. People are dying all over the world. In many areas at a considerable higher rate than in this conflict yet it is this conflict which stirs the most passion from many. Many whom as previously stated are on the sideline. Peace throughout history has seldom been achieved through the sympathy of the more powerful country's peace loving individuals bringing pressure. Ninty nine times out of a hundred the more powerful country decides internally what they want done then sets about looking to ensure it gets done. The methodical approach tends to be a luxury of the more powerful. No I don't not think Israel started this and I believe Hamas are terrorist. Calling Hamas evil and pointing out there failings does not and will not settle anything. Israel is more capable of a messured approach than is Hamas. No one leader or counsel controls Hamas. Looking to a group of loosely aligned terrorist to end a conflict is like looking to the fast food industry to end childhood obesity.

This conflict is very unique. There is war, murder, civil unrest, and government oppression all over the world yet when it come to this issue people seem to internalize the conflict very personally. I understand that "Israel has the right to defend itself" and I can empathize with "rockets exploding in your nieghborhood" but feel many of the feeling expressed here are hyperbole. There has been more murders in Chicago this year than there has been Israelis killed during this conflict. Israel has a population 3 times larger than Chicago. Yet somehow in Chicago residents are finding a way to love normal lives. Local government officials are able to manage without a military response. Views and opinions over who is to blame for all those deaths in Chicago isn't nearly the toxic black and white debate Israel vs Hamas is either. Why is that? A few months back Cliven Bundy, rancher in Neveda, had an armed standoff vs the Federal government of land rights/fees. People who had been associated with the happenings at Bundy's ranch later went into the city of Las Vegas and killed two police officers. Had the Federal, State, or local country government responded by blowing up Bundy's ranch and killing 30 or more people including women and children I think everyone would consider that an over reaction. That isn't to say Bundy is a good guy or that his militia supporters aren't dangerous. Extrapolate that out to Bundy hidding is bedroom communities in Las Vegas amongst sympathic but not different involved families and there is no way a violent military style government response would be tolerated.

The sexuality obsession has often tied to misogyny. Men have often been able to do as they please. At different time in history in Abrahamic religions men could take multiple wives, wives were often teenage girls, and fathers basically controlled whom their daughters would marry. Then you still have places today where it is considered the women's fault if she is raped. It seems to be an extents of male dominance over women and entitlement.

All animals that live in groups must have some social construct. If wolves killed all other wolves how would they ever be able to work as a team to hunt. Being it flocks of birds, schools of fish, pride of Lions, or a tribe of humans evolution has already made it possible for animals to stand together without needed to invoke a God. By our nature humans need other humans. If anything God allows many to forget that by places man in a world beyond that of the natural one.

I am not implying Israel is to blame. I believe Hamas is a terrorist organization. I understand that they (Hamas) want to wipe Israel off the map. My point was that long as Israel is killing Palistinians at a rate of something like 20-1 selling themselves as the good guys will be very difficult. If Israel could stop killing Palistinians for a sustained amount of the time and Hamas continued its aggression I think it would change the dialog. If Hamas was continiously attacking a passive responding Israel the clear solution in the global community would be to stop Hamas. Israel and its behavior good, bad, or neutral would be removed from the debate.

What issues do you consider yourself conservative or liberal about?

If Israel called for a cease fire and declared that they would not attack Hamas position in Gaza regardless of what Hamas does. If Israel killed zero civilians, bombed zero Gaza locations, and continued to be attacked by Hamas I think it would shift world opinion. Israel would clearly be the peace seekers and Hamas clearly the terrorist villains. At that point any number of multi nation efforts could be implored because it would no longer be a tit for tat back and forth conflict. It would clearly be Hamas attempting to kill Israelis. It would clearly be terrorism. Stopping the Hamas attacks would be something everyone could get behind. Blowing up Hamas positions inst preventing attacks anyways. So it isn't as though Israel would be increasing the threat of attack by refusing to bomb facilities in Gaza. All local defense messures successfully be use now would still be in place. Thus far Israeli civilians have not been killed. Israeli has the strongest military in the Middle East and could turn Gaza into a crater if they so chose. So if I were there, in Israel, I would be comfortable with the govt giving a cease fire a chance.

Of course all politicians get humbled by what they are actually able to acheive. That fact should not allow cover for those who make poor decisions. Policy wise Obama primarily ran on raising Taxes, The affordable care act, ending the wars, closing Gitmo, the Dream Act, jobs growth, and working with our allies on foriegn policy rather than going it alone. I believe Obama has attempted all of it. Obama was forced in to compromises on Taxes and healthcare, he was beaten by Congress on the Dream Act and Gitmo, and has kept his word on international affairs. Jobs have been recovering as well. From an engineering stand point the towers were designed to withstand both garage explosions and plane strikes. On paper both the 93' and 01' attacks had equal odds of success. Both were planned and executed in the same manner by the same organization. How many lives are lost is such attacks are often a matter of chance. In terms of how the govt should respond the two attacks were equal in my opinion.

Absolutely! I mentioned the 1993 bombin because it was literally to same place by the same terrorist organization. President Clinton did not respond by invading Afghanistan and then Iraq.

Bush 43 lost the popular vote in 00'. It took the supreme court to give him the electoral count. In 04' he won by another slim margin. Electoral college was 286 Bush to 251 Kerry. By contrast Obama won both of his elections walking away. So Bush was never a particularly poplar president to begin with. "first attack by a foreign aggressor on US soil since the war of 1812", what do you consider the first WTC bombing in 1993? Differing but equally difficult circumstances? Wow, Bush came into office with a Federal Budget surplus, low unemployment, strong economy, no wars overseas, and a federalist society controlled court. Obama came into office with a over a trillion dollar annual deficit, a collapsing finiancial system, losing 700,000 jobs per month, 2 unpopular overseas wars, a court that was and is opposed to him. You consider those circumstance different but equal?

It is odd to me that so many people feel so strongly either way. Normally it is universally agreed that killing is a bad thing. it is also usually understood that the side doing the bulk of the killing abdicates the self defense argument. The world community with one voice should be focused on peace. Not finger pointing. Regardless of who is to blame we all should want the killing to stop. All of it. I admit that threats of rockets being fired at my home might influence the way I feel but I also understand such influence biases ones opinion. After 9/11 here in the states, with majority support of citizens, we went into Afghanistan. We were defending ourselves? What was accomplished? Is terrorism dead? Has support for terrorism weakened? Does anyone here honestly believe Israel weakens Hamas's position amongst Palestinians by blowing up schools, parks, and hospitals? Does anyone here honestly believe that elements of Hamas don't intentially instigate such violence?

Science has been a double edged sword. While it has allowed humans to flourish it has also allowed humans to kill. For every person saved by medicine there has been a person shot or blown up. Add to that what we are doing to this planet and I almost wonder if it wouldn't have been better if we remained hunter gathers? We are where we though and science is the single best way forward.

Gaurdians of the Galaxy: While I personally did not enjoy the movie I could definately see the appeal. It was very whimsical. It reminded me more of a cartoon movie with a handful of live action characters like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" or "Cool World" than it did a typical superhero movie. My eyes don't have a taste for all the CGI and talking animals stuff but it was a very well made film. Had they hired a Bollywood director this perhaps could been something amazing. Lucy: Great concept but much like "Inception" the film gives way to meaningless gun play and violence. Perhaps the producers were afraid audience would come if the movie was too smart.

I use to believe there was no difference then Bush 43 became president over Al Gore. That sobered me up fast. While neither party represents my positions there are differences between the two. The differeces aren't stark as I wish but they do exist. You asked what Obama has done differently; do you honestly believe McCain/Palin or Romney/Ryan wouldn't have us in another war by now? Look at the events in Egyt, Syria, Ukraine, and Israel. You honesty think Bush/McCain/Romney wouldn't have the U.S. more directly involved? Bush 43 wanted to move on Syria in 05' but Iraq was going too poorly. If Obama has done nothing else at least he ended the two wars and not created any others. Look at the courts and ridiculous rulings like corporation personhood. That came directly from the Federalist Society. Do you think Al Gore would have put federalist Judge on the supreme court like Bush 43 did? Can you imagine what our courts would look like today is McCain/Palin were nominating judges rather than Obama/Biden? As for Gitmo, that is on Congress. Obama has tried but Congress refuses to allow prisoners to have trials in U.S. courts. Closing Gitmo is something Obama can legally do via executive action but transferring the prisoners is not. So he can just release every prisoner and get impeach by Congress or do what he has been doing which is not adding any new prisoners. He also stopped torturing them. Another important thing to consider is that the Executive branch is only a third of the federal govt. Republicans control the other two branches, Congress and the Courts. That balance of power prevents any lone President from diverging too far from the status qou.

this is already happening every midterm election season. Midterms only draw anywhere from 35-38% of elgible voters. Doesn't stop members of Congress from doing what they want. Apathy is exactly why our system doesn't work in my opinion. Sure everyone knows who the President is but the Executive Branch is only a third of the Federal Govt. A lot of people have no idea who represents them in the House or Senate. No idea who sits on the Courts. Many people are also ignorant of what impacts their local govt has on their lives. People often don't pay attention to city, county, and state races. My guess in that more people know who the Mayor of New York City is than who the Mayor of their own cities are.Rather than refusing to vote because we don't like the candidates people should start actually becoming educated about candidates other than the President. Third party voting for example has proven success in local govt races.

@ iNow, great response. You summarized it better than I could've. One area of memory you didn't touch on however is memory bias. How our own point of view and beliefs bias what we remember. It is why my wife remembers that I was "angry" about things I don't recall being angry about,

6 corporations own 90% of the media. Just 30 yrs ago it was 50 corporations. Media isn't just cable news either.http://www.businessinsider.com/these-6-corporations-control-90-of-the-media-in-america-2012-6 Left-wing media vs right-wing media is a fallacy. All of it is corporate media. As stated in my previous post, Conservatives are corporatists. By conservatives I mean Republicans. Moderate Democrats are as well. In my opinion there is actually no difference between the Democratic party today and the Republican of 30yrs ago. Policy wise Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford would be Democrats today. Even Bush 41 fits more in the Democratic mold. Deregulation of banks the 80's, growing strength of the Federalist Society in our courts (corporations are people), and global free market economics have transformed the current Republican Party. Oddly the Libertarian wing which was once seen as the far right wing of the Republican Party has chosen to stay associated. The tent no longer seems to fit them. Libertarians with their legalize pot, anti world policy, aniti increased local police militarization, and anti lobbyist in Washington views are probably better fit into the left wing of the Democratic party today. The anti corporatists, environmentalists, and anti *nuclearist were driven out of the Democratic party by the Kennedy and Clinton Democrats years ago. *Nuclearist is not a real word.

Desalination is slowly coming to the States. San Diego County in California are putting up a large plant. http://carlsbaddesal.com/

It is all about money. It always is. Desalination is an option. There are many different ways of doing it. We (United States) don't do more of it because it's expensive. Companies rather just suck lakes and rivers dry on the cheap. When they are all dried up we will start desalinazing ocean water.

@ Dekan, I am far more cynical about what motivates Conservatives than you are. Concerns over welfare have little to do with immigration policy IMO. The United States like most other wealthy countries use a steady flow of immigrant works to supplement industry with wages low workers. Immigration policy in a sense, IMO, is a form of corporate welfare. In wealthy middle east countries like UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia supplement their work force with immigrants from places Pakistan and India. In the United States we supplement the labor force with people from Central and South America. Disenfranchising immigrants by Keeping them from having citizenship or worker visa. It prevents them from having the rights or protection under law. Conservatism is really just a form or corperatism. They hide behind false debates as a means of pushing their own agendas. For example; Everyone knows climate change is real. United States, Russia, Canada, China, and so on are all battle for rights to the resources becoming availible in the north as a result of climate change. While battle over rights, moving assets north, and fielding contracts and bids from corperations Conservative politicians take to the podium and claim climate science in incomplete. They bold face lie because there is too much profit in maintaining the status qou. I don't think conservatism is a mild form of insanity. However I do think it is driven by anger and greed. Two things which history has proven to be very strong motivators.

Good stuff.