jcd11235

And there is nothing about "promote" that excludes "provide." In fact, providing one way to partially promote. If we were talking about football, I would agree. When it comes to foreign policy, there's not much evidence to support your assertion. Why isn't Switzerland constantly under attack? Their military offensive strategy is terrible. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I didn't know you were a proponent of school vouchers. Refreshing. I'm not. Of course you know that, you just chose to misquote me. Here's the sentence I wrote: Education benefits society as much as the individual. Society should pay for it, even if they send their kids to private school, their kids are grown, or they don't even have kids. Notice how you cut out important phrases? When you do that, you need to replace them with an ellipsis (…). If parents want to send their kids to private schools, let them. That should not change their responsibility to fund public education, just as parents with grown children fund it, and just as non-parents fund it. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

As a voter, I'm more concerned with the proposal she has now than with what she proposed in the nineties. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I see many of these same characteristics in Obama. He's just more charismatic when he displays them. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The universe is, by its very nature, eternal. Time exists within the universe, not the other way around. Cosmologists have several theories regarding the fate of the universe. Some imply a cyclic or oscillating universe, others do not. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The concept of time prior to the singularity is non-sensical. Time exists within the universe, not the other way around. The concept of space before the singularity is non-sensical. Space exists within the universe, not the other way around. True. The universe is eternal. It exists independently of time, without beginning or end. The observable universe, on the other hand, is finite. It's not an assumption; it's an incorrect statement. There is a difference between the observable universe and the universe. The observable universe is part of the universe, but not the whole universe. The observable universe began with a singularity, the Big Bang. From that Big Bang time, space and matter emerged. Just as a black hole has an unknowable history prior to existence as a singularity, so, likely, did the universe, although prior is rather meaningless in such a context. An eternal cycle is a more plausible explanation. There is no requirement for a supernatural being to be a prime mover. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Could you clarify that? Problem as in shortage? If I remember my physics correctly, hydrogen's average velocity is too high for it to be contained by the earth's atmosphere, which is why it is only found on earth naturally when bonded to heavier atoms. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I hope she doesn't. Of the two of them, I would much rather see her in the White House. I don't like her, but I like Obama even less. Either way, November's choice will be between bad or worse. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Pot, meet Kettle. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I suspect Iraq. I wonder if and when Israel would get involved. It's not in their best interest for any single country to gain too much power. Such a scenario could make for strange bedfellows indeed. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

McCain wants to take money from taxes for healthcare, too, he just doesn't want to address underlying problems. None of the three candidates proposes such a thing. Education benefits society as much as the individual. Society should pay for it, even if they send their kids to private school, their kids are grown, or they don't even have kids. But that discussion doesn't belong in this thread.[/hijack] Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You keep making this same claim. Back it up, for once. Link to the terms of the surrender, and specify which one(s) were being violated in 2003. Maybe you can find the UNSC resolution authorizing the No-Fly zones. While you're at it, could you link to the post in this thread where I claimed the invasion was illegal? I said it was ill advised, and that the intelligence was questionable, but I don't think I claimed it to be illegal. Maybe another strawman on your part? Ahhh … the old standby for those without any support for their argument - criticize the writing. Do not think that I do not believe that your posts in this thread are not without a lack of credibility. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

School attendance is compulsory, not public school attendance. Parents can send their kids to public schools, private schools, or homeschool them. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The fact of the matter is, he had gotten rid of his WMD's. And we invaded when he was cooperating with the UN inspections. The important part of his surrender in 1991 was to give up the weapons, not the inspections themselves. They were only to verify that he had given up the weapons as he claimed, which we now know was true. Just because Clinton did it doesn't make it legal or right. That's not at all unusual for many sovereign leaders. Considering Bush & Co. went out of their way to try to connect Iraq with 9/11, knowing that there was no such connection, it seems highly unlikely that Bush didn't have plans to invade Iraq long before 2002. He was fully cooperating with the UN inspectors when we invaded. We were only able to get authorization for the invasion by presenting incorrect intel to the UN, intel that many felt was wrong at that time, but we claimed that we knew for a fact that Iraq had WMD's and the capability to employ them with only 45 minutes notice. He didn't have the authority to take Saddam out of power. Legal implications aside, he probably realized why it would have been a stupid idea to remove Saddam from power with anyone to fill the power vacuum. In 2003 his son wasn't smart enough to understand why removing Saddam from power would be an incredibly stupid thing to do. I wonder if he has comprehended that lesson yet. Unnecessary? Given the ill advised invasion and removal of Saddam, the occupation was unavoidable. Anarchy in the Middle East was in no ones best interest. The lack of order now pales in comparison had we just left and let the country succumb to the ensuing lawlessness. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The old standby- the facts don't support your claims, so you bring up a Clinton. To use your words, "What a load of BS." If you can remember back to 2003, The UN weapons inspectors wanted more time to finish their jobs, since they hadn't yet found any evidence of WMD. We wouldn't give them the time they needed, because the conclusion they would reach was going to be one counter to the pro-war propaganda coming from the white house. Gen. Colin Powell had even gone on the record early in Bush's first term that we knew Iraq posed no significant threat to anyone, including close neighbors. Ummm … no. Sorry. Our faulty (fabricated?) intelligence is what led to the second war. Please explain how Desert Storm was a less significant ground war than OIF. Is it because there was a clear mission and GHW Bush listened to his military leaders? What about OEF? Do you not consider it a significant war? And enforce unauthorized no-fly zones. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Here's the thing: Iraq's invasion of Kuwait had zero to do with the invasion. We were the ones that would not let the weapons inspectors do their job. We were the ones who took it upon ourselves to enforce no-fly zones that weren't authorized by the UN. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I agree. We should have considered that before we invaded. More accurately, those that made the decision to invade should have listened to those that did consider that. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

huh? In war, the loser pays. And let's not forget they were the aggressor. Generally, the country that is initially invaded is considered the aggressor. Iraq was the country that was initially invaded, not the US. We were the aggressor. We invaded preemptively, on bad intel, for what turned out to be no legitimate reason, or at the very least, no reason that was given to the US citizens (or any of the world's citizens), The US Congress or the United Nations. So, I guess in your world, if someone comes and trashes your house, as long as the beat you up in the process then they should not be liable for the damages they've caused? It's funny the things a country can afford when they are not having to rebuild an infrastructure that was destroyed in an unjustified invasion. And anyone who has survived a car accident that was not their fault wants their car fixed and medical expenses paid by the at-fault party. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Funny, Krongard acknowledged that it wasn't working. In fact, there's no evidence that torture worked for any of the three, Zubaydah, KSM, or bin al-Shibh. Want more expert opinion? Here is a quote from Lt. General John Kimmons, U.S. Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence. "No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices," Kimmons said. "I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the past five years, hard years, tells us that." He argued that "any piece of intelligence which is obtained under duress through the use of abusive techniques would be of questionable credibility." And Kimmons conceded that bad P.R. about abuse could work against the United States in the war on terror. "It would do more harm than good when it inevitably became known that abusive practices were used," Kimmons said. "We can't afford to go there." Kimmons added that "our most significant successes on the battlefield -- in fact, I would say all of them, almost categorically, all of them" -- came from interrogators that stuck to the kinds of humane techniques framed in the new Army manual. "We don't need abusive practices in there," Kimmons said. "Nothing good will come from them." Need more? Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. … An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture. Source That's a fallacious description – the argument *for* torture rests on it being effective in cases in which traditional methods do not work. It’s not. And this is where we disagree. There are many people who believe it is ineffective (and I would bet that much of that rests on the distaste for the actual act). There are also many people who believe that it is effective. It's like bringing experts into court - you can find experts to support just about anything. You still haven't provided links to any experienced interrogators that with examples of torture producing reliable intel. Apparently you can't "find experts to support just about anything." You keep using this same illogical argument. Our government does not deny the interrogation methods being used. Quite the contrary, the White House administration vigorously defends them. They only deny that the methods used fit within the definition of torture. Never mind the fact that we have prosecuted people using the same techniques for torture in the past. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Please support your assertion with evidence. Feel free to provide links, especially if such evidence is so easy to find. No more ridiculous than your assertions. If they agree with you, provide links. So far you've provided zero evidence. Please read the links provided. Frankly, I'm tired of going back through them and doing your homework for you. Your post that I replied to asked why we use the techniques if they are not 100% effective (paraphrased). I agree. However, thus far we have seen zero evidence that torture is effective. Zero. Only your claims that it must work. I know that, based on the evidence, the probability is very low. I also don't know that I won't win the jackpot if I buy a Lotto ticket, but that doesn't mean I should buy one. You're apparently looking for statistical evidence that is not available at all, regardless of what it indicates. Again, provide evidence to support your assertion. We've seen zero evidence to indicate that torture is effective. Zero. Feel free to provide some if you believe torture can be effective. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Interesting argument, but, unfortunately, it is faulty logic. It makes the assumption that the universe had a beginning. The universe as we know it emerged from a singularity. The beginning of time occurred at the Big Bang. That doesn't mean that the universe came into existence at that point, only that any information of how the singularity came to be is lost and unknowable by man, at least with our current level of understanding. There are more plausible ideas than a supernatural being creating the universe at that point. One possibility is that the universe is cyclical, and the Big Bang, modeled mathematically, is an instant represented numerically with division by zero. Note that the Greek word logos (sorry, the greek letters didn't render) is translates to both word and, perhaps more importantly, ratio. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

It is safer for the person administrating the injection to start with a sterile needle so that, in the event he pricks himself, he is not exposed to the dangers associated with needle sharing. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Not quite. If A=B and B=C, then we can logically deduce that A=C. On the other hand, If some A are B and some B are C, we cannot logically deduce that some A are C. And that falls under logic, not evidence. An example of evidence might be: If the universe is expanding, then the celestial bodies outside of our galaxy should be moving away from us. That most celestial bodies outside our galaxy display a red shift, regardless of the direction that we look, demonstrating that they are moving away from us, would be considered evidence that the universe is expanding. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Sigh. When asking for evidence of the existence of god, atheists typically are referring to scientific evidence. I have yet to ever see or hear about any scientific evidence of any deity. The Bible does not constitute such evidence. The wondrous appearance of the world around us is not such evidence. The complexity of a cell is not such evidence. The fact that cosmologists understand the universe at precisely time zero is not such evidence. The feeling one experiences from their worship of a deity is not evidence. How is it illogical or unreasonable to believe only in the natural? What premise(s), known (i.e. not merely believed) to be true (i.e. verifiably factual), can we start with, and logically deduce from that premise (e.g. A=B, B=C, therefore A=C) that one should believe in the supernatural? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Have you tried the dictionary to find definitions appropriate for the context of making a logically valid argument? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!