JustinW

Although I am much younger than you, I myself have had these same feelings. And now you've got me wondering if this is a manufactured fear by those who profit from such, or has our society really declined to the point to where we are not as safe as we used to be in the not to distant past. I can also see an implication on the social aspects of future generations. I would hate to think that society will recluse itself more and more as such fears progress. The war on drugs is very much like our current war on terror. It's unwinnable. With drugs we're fighting against human behaviour and the feel good factor that so many yearn for. They're too easy to come by. In my small neck of the woods drugs are just as prevailant as they were 2 or 3 decades ago. There has been trends that come and go, but as far as that connecting to other type crimes I haven't seen any change in my area. That's not to say that it doesn't have a connection in bigger communities. One thing that has grown in my community over the past couple of decades has been the illegal immigrant population. The amount of crime such as robbery and sexual assualt has went up accordingly also. I would have to assume that that is because illegals don't have the same fear of the law that citezens do. Just a couple of months ago a 75 year old woman was robbed and raped three blocks from my house. This is something that is virtually unheard of around here. It was later heard that the suspect had already fled back across the border to evade the law in this matter. So from a local stand point I would have to say that illegal immigration is more of an issue than the war on drugs. I could fairly say that I would feel safer letting my 9 year old daughter ride her bike through a neighborhood of these backwood dope smokin rednecks before I would feel safe with her riding through a neighborhood of illegal immigrants. You might ask "How do you know they're illegal?", and I would reply, "around here you can tell fairly easy". It isn't as hard in a small town to recognise such as it probably would be in a city. But then again I also have to question my fears just as I have above. Are these manufactured fears or a decaying of the populations scruples that account for these fears? Something to think about.

These were some of the inaccuracies that were mentioned on wiki of all places. It is kind of hard to decide what is accurate and what to do about mentioned "problems" once some things turn up to be inaccurate. Like I said "grain of salt".

Although I do think America is comprimising itself in many different aspects, I don't see that we are eliminating the middle class. I just see easier access to information allowing false rhetoric to incite the middleclass into a fallacious frenzy. The so called "progressive movement" incinuates that we need to look to a new era of tolerance, fairness, and equality in order survive in the future. I call bullsh**. Reality has often been anything but tolerant, equal, or fair. I have three kids, two of which are 6 and 9, and these are life lessons that schools these days refuse to teach, but leave to the parents. You can see what I mean in the way they let young kids play sports. Most have stopped keeping score or at least stop once a team gets too far ahead, just to pamper a potential losing teams feelings. I have no problem with parents teaching our children these life lessons, but I also think it's equally important for those children to learn them in the midst of their peers. http://www.usatoday.com/news/comment/2002/05/09/ncoppf.htm http://biggovernment.com/jlott/2011/10/04/chicagos-violent-crime-rates-plummet-after-scotus-removes-handgun-ban/ I have also read a poll where 71% over 29% of Americans believe that a ban on guns would propogate a higher violent crime rate. It only makes sense to me that a law banning guns would only affect an honest person whereas the criminal element just don't give hoot.

How is this? Again I think this may be more prevailant in bigger cities than in smaller communities. The only way I could see it affecting the way our kids are raised is for me telling mine that fairness and equallity has shite to do with the real world and the way it works. This one I can agree with. I wouldn't go for not playing altogether since the other options aren't viable, not to mention ideologically unsound for the spirit of this nation. But I would have no problem with going back to the basics if we could find a way to fit current economics in with same standards the old model gives us. Agreed. Also agreed. Man I love it when a plan comes together.

I have a question that really isn't specific at all. The way I see it, the fabric of space time consists of the void. There hasn't been any particles connected to this void but we do know that there is an ultimate pressure. Could it be this pressure that makes up the fabric of space-time? The vacuum has pressure and wave length fluxuation, can this construct the thing we know as the fabric of space? We know that this fabric of space is warped by gravity. Once gravity gets too much for this fabric to handle, we then get what's called a black hole, from which gravity has punched through the fabric. Can this be a sound hypothesis for the fabric of space? And is there any science that contradicts this hypothesis so far? If black holes are just that, holes in the fabric of space, then what is on the other side of that hole? My first assumption would be a perfect vacuum. The very thing that is needed to support our universe. Is there not any means to test the pressures at different parts of our observable? Why can't we test the different pressures at different volumes of gravity to get a better understanding of the void and it's pressure? My meaning of the void is the locations where matter doesn't take up space. From outerspace down to the empty space inside of atoms. Just some Q&A. I could probably come up with more, but I think this is enough dumbass for me to show for the time being.

Agreed, and a certain amount of correction should be considered when it comes to the top 1%. But I don't think it should be a type that affects the majority of average businesses out there or the social structure of the country as a whole. But here you're only talking about one part of the same movement. In Moore's films he touches on more than just corporate America. He also touches on social aspects of America and hints towards the fact that the 1%ers are also responsible for this. The ,so called "movement", is not just about corporate business and economy. It's social justice, social equality, human rights, entitlements, etc... utopian society or close to it. Did you notice the ending song in the film "A Love Story"? It was the socialist anthem "The Internationale". He goes on to interview priests and the like to insinuate that socialism is holier than capitalism. Here is just one link http://www.rense.com...8/socialism.htm. I pointed fingers at one side because it was Moore and what he talks about that was the subject of this thread. And I think I mentioned that I could understand what Moore was talking about to a degree if he wasn't championing this kind of ideology. If he was making a documentary that said, "look we've got a problem that needs to be adressed", then I would say fine. But when he goes on to try and mask his true intentions behind someone's mistakes I say that alone hurts a person's credibility. I wouldn't say to totally ignore what anyone has to say, but I would say that someone like Moore should be taken with a grain of salt. Very true and for those who have done this, very commendable. But when you say something like that it implies that you mean the nation as a whole. When the true fact is that this only applies to the big cities and those top 1%ers. The fact is that when those uppity polititions get together to rein in these abuses, it won't just be those 1%ers getting the shaft. Anything that will happen to them, they will make damn sure it will filter down to average citizens. The fact is that steps need to be taken that directly deal with these abuses that happen between polititions and corporations. I don't agree with the analogy. I don't believe that fair and even should be any part of political or social policy. We still need the freedom to allow a company to grow as much as the market will allow them to. We just need to stop the top companies from gaining in a way that others can't, through political gains and such. The restriction wouldn't be on freedom or growth, but rather restrict on political conspiracy and exploitation. Does that make any sense? I'm kind of just going off the cuff here and haven't thought my posts out to any great length.

But you also cannot ignore so many people when it comes to changing their way of life and the way that they do buisness. I say focus on the one percent and leave the 99% alone to live their lives.

Phi, It's rather funny you should ask. Once I thought about it for a split second, capitalism to me, doesn't have anything to do with corporations, lobbyists, polititions, or film producers for that matter. All the while having to include them. Capitalism for me is my kids kindergarden teacher selling pies in her shop on the square, or Pete at his hardware store across the street from her who'll cut you a deal if you don't have enough money for what you need at the time. Or Oliver, the grocery store manager who's an a**hole just because he can be, all the while accepting produce from people's gardens just so they can earn an extra buck every now and then. All this complaint about 1% really annoys the sh** out of me. Lets change our whole structure and the reason that America used to be a place where people wanted to come for a better life. Let's switch to socialism or something of that sort just because we let a nasty 1% of America piss us off. Let's not focus on righting that 1% but instead let's do things that will affect the 99% as well. I might could like what Moore has to say if it didn't include an anthem for socialism or the fact that it's not just a complaint against the one percent, but goes towards establishing an idea that this is what America has become. That's BS. And when I mentioned rhetoric, that is what I meant. Is he not inciting action from an audience through argument? Is that not what rhetoric means? Rhetoric comes from both sides and Moore clearly shouts from the side of socialism and the like. Capitalism is what built this country to it's greatness. I remember you saying, Phi, that the so called, "American Dream" is a thing of the past. That it has no place in a world economy such as ours. I beg to differ. Why is it, do you think, that we have an unprecedented number of imigrants, legal and illegal. They come to this country for a better life. They come to this country for a hope to better support their families and themselves. They come to this country in hopes of capitalizing on skills and ideas that they may either posess or contribute to. Capitalism is not a bad thing when you consider the 99%. It is that rhetoric that has has given capitalism a bad name because of the 1%. It is that rhetoric that has shamed people into believeing that we are a greedy nation and that we are incapable of doing what is right without giving up freedom for the sake of fairness and equality. I find it ironic that Moore shouts down the government and the 1%, while championing a way of life that would be strictly run by the government and that same 1%. That doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense to me.

Alright I'll quit nitpickin'. So, is it possible that psychosomatic excersizes can have physical effects on the body? Let's say for instance, we know that it probably wasn't psychosomatic excersize rather than some physical change that acted on the thermometer. But I have heard about things like mind over matter and the like. Do y'all think Psychosomatic excersize has any bearing on physical reality? Also this reminds me of several other things. Like when they say people die of a broken heart or that mice have a certain reaction of getting scared to death when they're too young to run from a predator. Could these last two examples possibly be psychosomatic behavior having a physical effect on the body?

iNow, I knew it would. What is it they say about assuming... I know I do it all the time. Why is it more fair to assume they don't rather than they do? Especially when the opening line of the OP was, "I'm a believer in God", and then makes a connection to God and bodily phenomena. I think it's more fair to assume that Angels do exist when under the context of the OP since no one can prove that they do not.

imatfaal, But it adds one because he attacks the very thing that made him rich. He attacks capitalism, which seems to be working just fine for him, and spouts left wing rederict. It seems very coincedental that the film "A love story" came out at the same time Obama was trying to push through a major agenda. Michael Moore, genuinly concerned, or liberal lapdog? That film was known for a couple of blatant fallacies and seemed to champion socialism in place of capitalism, which is in itself kind of ironic since Moore doesn't seem to want to spread his wealth any. It seems to me that all Moore has done was make money on people's emotional dispair and anger toward government. He even went so far as to blame Wall Street for Hurricane Katrina having such a big impact on New Orleans. WTF! I'll have to admit he does put a hell of a spin on things, but I also can't help but think that someone could just as well put a conservative spin on things if they felt the need. I also have to question the motives of his work. Are his films really made to "open peoples eyes", or is it just a need to reach more people on an emotional level to push an agenda that would have no strength without the spin and emotional rederict.

JohnStu, I wasn't aware that any details had been anounced about the negotiations yet. iNow, After reading back over your origional post it seems I missed this(bolded) and therefore agree.

iNow, Isn't this sort of a conundrum? Hasn't age always been a factor in these things to some degree? JohnStu, I'm not understanding this. I thought the purpose of a FREE trade agreement was to lessen tariffs on foreign goods and promote availability to grow economies. Is that not the case here?

Only a little. Being such a broad generality leaves the sentence open to include the world's population. Also since the OP included the possibility of religious experience the generality should have already been accepted to include the worlds population that are majorily religious. Therefore location is not implicit. The arrogance was in the direct NO that started your statement, while the facetiousness was in the fallible generality.(even if unintended) I always have a problem with the object cynicism and contempt that some of the members show towards those who believe in religion on this forum. Those who don't believe in deities can't prove deities don't exist just as much as those who do believe in deities can't prove that they do. My appologies John, if you weren't intending to sound like this. I guess the post just struck a chord.

Good advise except for this maybe. Normally by who, John? You and those who think like you? Since you and those who think like you don't make up a majority of the worlds population I think such an assertion is facetious at best, if not a little arrogant.

We can start by asking a few questions about scenarios that were mentioned in the OP. I have often thought a little about our social situations here in the states and the direction it will lead us in the long run. Equality and fairness seem to play a more vital role in peoples decisions than individual freedoms do. What kind of effect will it have on our future once we start giving up freedom for security? Is it even ethical to make a decision that affects another unfairly, even if the affect is indirect?(hence:unhealthy effecting healthcare) When did we start allowing ourselves to be so pampered as to accept such restrictions as we have now a days? Is there a certain point where social equality can be translated into totalitarianism, marxism, etc...and are these things good or bad for a society like America's? Sorry for the generalizations. I just wanted to kick off a healthy dialogue and figure this will be enough to do so.

Usually the bomb is more effective than the smile.

Depending on position a shadow can look monstrous. You see an enormous shadow on the wall and automatically judge it to be something monsterous, only to turn around and find a child standing behind you. I believe the phrase is similar to that of "don't judge a book by it's cover". Also, only an idiot would try to find specifics with broad generalizations. Generalizations can be useful depending on context. They only become irrelevant when the context is changed to require something more specific.

Actually medicaid was what I was thinking of more than medicare. The projections seem fine with the rate of growth compared to expenditures, but at the state level they still seem to have problems due to mismanagement of funds, constraints on deficit financing and new taxes, and seceptability to unseen systemic risks.(as stated by Harold Pollack- University of Chicago) Pollack argues to make this a federal program instead of state based program. I tend to agree if for no other reason than it would be easier to establish a system to weed out the fraud enveloping the current programs. As to health care in general I tend to disagree with making it universal for a couple of reasons. The first is that sustainability just doesn't come from the money put into run a program. It's more of a systemic sustainability that I would worry about. Doctors and nurses will no longer have a say in how they are paid and ultimately be subjected to other restrictions. Just look back over the last several years. Doctors were dropping medicare patients by the truck load and medicaid patients at an even larger rate because the government wasn't paying the tab like they were supposed to. I believe with as smart as those in the profession are, that once they are not given a choice, a lot will more than likely find another way to make their money creating a shortage of doctors. With a shortage of doctors we will start running into long waiting periods that begins to have an effect on peoples recovery and level of treatment. I'll admit these scenarios are speculative, but instead of overturning the whole medical system to provide better availability... Why doesn't it sound more reasonable to federalise the current programs, crack down on the fraud and abuse, and provide a structure that promotes the growth and availability of such a program?

Swansont, Hey, I'm just commenting on the data like was suggested. And no it doesn't fit nicely once it slides down to starting position of 0.25. After adjustment the projected temp is still off at 0.45, while the actual temp is at 0.25. Also the projection still has an extreme rate of assent if the projection is expected to hold it's course. The actual temp part of the graph looks the same as the IPCC's chart. The reason the projections were based at 0.45 degrees instead of 0.2 can be found by the second chart provided by JohnB above. It is the A1B SRES projections and the actual projection model starts in 1990 not 2000. So looking at it from that time frame the chart that starts projections off in 2000 at 0.45 degrees makes more sense. The projections were obviously wrong. Do we have any that are closer that can better argue that global warming is a problem?

Swansont, okay fair enough. It wasn't brought to the table by me, but once on the table I felt it should have been answered directly. The issue of agenda was brought to my attention in a link provided by iNow, where the opening statements of the IPCC indicated it's purpose was politically driven. As far as the feelings I share about doing something so jurrastic with so little predictability spurs from the fact that it's true. You couple this with the evolution/creatiionist arguement, but it's not the same. There is a crap load more evidence for evolution than there is for global warming, yet people want to turn the current system on it's head because of it. I'll try to stick to the basic from here on out though. Even if the anomoly started at 0.25c it would still be off and still at a more extreme rate of assent. Is everyone missing the fact that the graph shows the temps to be fairly steady from 2000 -2011? Once looked at from a larger time line it is actually steadier throughout that period than any other similar length of time in the past. What's up with that? Any recent readjustment of possible projections?

No, that's not a correct comparison. Fighting side by side with them is a different story. You have to ask yourself if the enemy of your enemy really your friend. And visa-versa. We might try asking nicely. That might work huh?

ooh, touchy subject. I think the intent is good but the program would be just as unsustainable as all the other programs we currently run. Not to mention the impact it would have on the field of medicine. It's hard to believe that a majority of doctors and nurses would want to work for the government. Agree 100% I don't know what the statistics show. I guess you probably see more of this in the big cities and such. I'm still living in a time where hard work gets results and lazyness leads to poverty and government handouts. I think it is easier to see that result in smaller communities. Yeah I think they are trying to reap the profit while they can. The major contributor, I think, is the part of the plan that just kicked in about pre-existing conditions. I'm not sure of this though. I just figured that the insurance companies are trying to cover costs of payouts through a hike in premiums. Just speculation though. Agreed.

IM Egdall, Do deniers want to make jurrastic change because of it? I think not. It's also funny how some of the people who want to push this idea need to walk around pointed questions like they're not lagitimate questions. Especially when it comes to motives, misinformation, and weak predictability that they want to use to usher in a new era of politics. I've asked pointed questions and have gotten no straight answers except to nitpick about the phrasing of insignificant lines that have little to do with the subject. Swansont, It doesn't, but it's odd that one sides agenda fits perfectly into the scope of the scientific consensus. That, coupled with the activism for major change on so little pradictability seems rather suspect to me. It gives pause to consider that maybe there is something more than just scientific hypothesi involved.

Captain, I stand corrected sir. Well said, and agreeable given some thought. The reason I mentioned Texas the way I did was for our pride in general for being Texans. Most of the people where I come from take pride in our sovereignty. (even if it is only a word now days) The toughness and the " I don't care what people think" attitude may not be what is good for us in the long run. But it is what it is. Fight at the drop of a hat and discuss the details after, is the general attitude from where I'm from, so it's hard for me to think outside the box in most cases although I try.