jcd11235

Would you mind elaborating? no thanks, it's not a serious question you're asking, is it? I've heard enough bullshit tales of peaceful nice Iraq in the Bay Area to last a lifetime. As I have heard enough bullshit tales about how bad things were in Iraq before we come in bombing. Iraq posed no threat to us or her neighbors. Iraq had no WMD. Iraq had running water and electricity. Since you refuse to elaborate, I have to assume it's because you realize that facts do not support your assertions. If I'm wrong, and you do have supporting facts please feel free to bring them forward for those of us who have maintained enough awareness to realize that the Bush administration has yet to offer up such evidence. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Would you mind elaborating? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Do you have a source to support this claim? Actually, I think I just heard that one time. Please accept my apology for claiming something I can't back up. Here are a few stories I did find. Bear in mind that both sources lean right, particularly Jared Taylor. Please, feel free to show where his findings have been disproven. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3691 http://www.vdare.com/taylor/050913_crime.htm Apology accepted, though I wasn't offended. It bugs me when I see that particular claim, because it is rarely, if ever backed up with ingenuous evidence. I haven't examined your sources closely enough to comment on them. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

In the example, the homeowner was specifically trying to kill the intruder. Redefining the scenario to make the homeowner out to be the good guy further demonstrates my point that perspective is everything when it comes to making judgement calls. No, it means he killed him, which is the other half of murdering/killing. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Perhaps your dictionary differs from mine, but being a devil's advocate is just a tool to test the strength of opposing arguments. If you do not posses the ability to see the flaws in the logic and reasoning of this statement ... no comment. If you see flaws, please point them out. As far as I can tell, they are merely extensions of the logic you proposed. The homeowner was guilty of trying to kill another human being. You said: Are you saying that sometimes murdering/killing another human being is justified? If so, who gets to decide when that is the case? The world is not black and white, right and wrong. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Do you have a source to support this claim? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I was playing devil's advocate. Having said that, I personally disagree with the Catholic / Christian interpretations of much of the Old Testament. ... And with your logic, insurgents are fully justified killing off American troops in Iraq. Or, a burglar would be justified killing an armed homeowner who was trying to protect his property by killing the burglar. What is good and what is bad is not as clear cut as we would like to believe. We have a tendency to believe ourself to always be on the side of right. Most killings can be argued to be both murder, and justified if looked at from multiple perspectives. I'm not trying to justify murder, I'm pointing out our justifications for murder/killing can often be considered absurd. We just have to look at things from a different perspective. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

What a sexist! Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

As far as the question of the criminal having the same right to life as my children, that's an interesting question... so if faced w/ the choice, which should I choose? The goblin has my daughter at gun point and I have a clear shot at him. If I don't shoot and kill HIM, he says he will kill her. What is the right thing to do?[ The answer, IMO, goes to your second question, would Jesus/God be happy w/ me turning the other cheek. The passage you're referencing says that if someone slaps you on one cheek, turn and offer him the other. It doesn't say, if someone slaps your daughter's cheek, turn and offer him your daughter's other cheek. I can chose to give MY life away at the hands of a criminal, in order to witness God's infinite love and in some way to shadow for him the sacrificial death of Jesus. Many saints have done this in the past. However, I do NOT have the right to offer up someone ELSE's life. I don't have such sovereignity of anyone else's life. My only choice is to protect those that God has blessed me with. Now, I WOULD have the choice to practice the virtue of forgiveness if some goblin took the life or lives of those in my family and I wasn't there to defend them. Then, in that circumstance, it would be a very powerful and healing thing, for me and hopefully for the perp to forgive. And I hope that if I'm ever in that circumstance that I'm able to do that. I don't know that I'd be able to though. I agree with you about having a responsibility as a father. Your last paragraph is the point I was originally trying to make. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Wow. I bet you teach logic for a living, don't you. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

yeah the hippocriitic liberals who hate violence and think we should just learn to understaaand islamofacists, and give them a biiiiiig hug, would love to see GWB be shot in cold blood....typical. I don't think anyone in America wants to see W die before January 2009, because they know who would take his place. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I hope you're joking, and don't really consider these wrongful offenses that need to be forgiven. If they are, I should probably begin forgiving God each night the sunset is not the most beautiful sunset I've ever seen. There is a HUGE difference between being wronged, and things not going exactly how we would like them to, IMO. Before we can truly forgive, we must be truly wronged. There is a reason Jesus wanted us to love our enemies. It's a gift to ourself as much as, if not more than a gift to our enemy. In the eyes of Jesus, shouldn't the criminal would have the same right to life as your children? Wouldn't God/Jesus would be happy with you for turning the other cheek? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I'm not really disagreeing with you, only offering an alternate perspective. [devil's advocate]How are we ever to enjoy the gift of being able to forgive if we are never wronged?[/devil's advocate] Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Link? Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I have to admit, it took little time for this administration to change their tune from "he has no WMD" to "he has WMD." I would be very interested in understanding what caused the sudden change in intel without changing the actual inability of Iraq to produce and implement WMD. Colin Powell, February 24, 2001: Source Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That was my problem, I was using only one, either or.... not both. I still hate it but give me 20 mins and I can get it right. Both parts were present; they were just written incorrectly. I won't point out what made them correct, as I don't want to confuse you as you study for your test. Good luck!

Come to think of it, I enjoyed both Pulp Fiction and Natural Born Killers. I wonder how many people think I'm hypocritical in my position against murder. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

How about x = (-b + sqrt(b^2 - 4ac))/2a and x = (-b - sqrt(b^2 - 4ac))/2a ? I know it seems like nit picking, but the difference is very important.

I don't know the extent of restrictions at UCF. I was surprised to learn that there were any restrictions at all. But then I was also surprised to find a mall inside the student union. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

"the English language" The third word is language. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

What can you take with you to the test? There are several calculators on the market that will solve quadratic equations quite easily (Texas Instruments TI-89 or Hewlett Packard HP-49g+ are two such models). Still others can be programmed to do so with relative ease. Perhaps one or more such models is allowed in your class? They may be, since often professors are quite unaware of the capabilities of calculators. It might be easier to teach keystrokes from a distance. Having said that, If the discriminant (b²-4ac) is equal to zero, you will have only one answer. If it is greater than zero, you will have two answers. If it is less than zero, the quadratic equation cannot be factored (without using imaginary numbers, which tends to be beyond the scope of College Algebra). Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

------------------------------------------------------------- We do have such things at the University of Central Florida. The irony is that businesses are free to pay to set up booths to spout their marketing rhetoric outside the free speech zones, but the tuition paying students are significantly restricted in the locations they can spread their views. UCF is a PUBLIC institution, not a private one (it's part of the State University System of Florida). That being the case, in my professional opinion, restricting on-campus demonstrations to a designated "free-speech zone" on the UCF campus is an unlawful violation of the First Amendment. (And allowing vendors to operate outside the free-speech zone, but not letting tuition-paying students do so is, arguably, a violation of "equal protection of the law" under the 14th Amendment.) The reason is that UCF is run (at least in part) by government money, and the state participates to a degree in its governance and thus the school's action in limiting free speech (especially by students who have a right to be there and thus cannot be labeled "trespassers") can be deemed an extension of "government (state) activity". Mind you, in this specific context, it's not the restriction alone that makes it a First Amendment violation, it's the "government" connection which – along with the restriction – makes it so. It's a greyer area when the restrictions are on campuses of schools that are strictly PRIVATE, and receive no government sponsorship. Private institutions' campuses are strictly private property, and the general rule (with a few exceptions, such as common areas of shopping centers open to the general public) is that owners/possessors of private property may regulate public activity (demonstrations, vendors, whatever) on their premises as they see fit. In other words, what UCF is doing is (in my opinion) unconstitutional (thereby giving a person whose rights are violated standing to request court intervention), whereas Brigham Young University doing the exact same thing - as long as it receives no government money or state participation in its governance - might be permissible. I agree that the policy shouldn't stand up to judicial scrutiny. I just wanted to point out that until the issue is examined by courts, it is an enforced policy. I should add that I do not agree with the policy. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

And on college campuses all across the nation. Its super common for a university to have a "free speech zone" and for you to get in serious trouble for staging ANYthing outside of those zones. Unless its something that's pro-university or pro-universty-sports. Really? We don't have that, and neither does any other university in Chicago that I know of. According to Halvorssen of The First Amendment Center, there are "dozens" of colleges and universities with such zones. Given over 3,000 colleges and universities in the US, that doesn't seem "super common" to me. Free speech zones first sprang up in the late '60s in a few public universities, in a vain attempt to stifle student protests over the Vietnam War. We do have such things at the University of Central Florida. The irony is that businesses are free to pay to set up booths to spout their marketing rhetoric outside the free speech zones, but the tuition paying students are significantly restricted in the locations they can spread their views.

So Fox News *will* negotiate with terrorists. Would Bushco approve? As much as I despise the reasoning behind their protest, I don't believe WBC should be referred to as terrorists for a peaceful, albeit highly offensive protest. Free speech discourages violence as a primary means of protest. We are better of as a country when a group is able to get results from peaceful protests, so that they do not feel compelled to escalate their actions to a violent level.

While I agree with the posters that have stated that the best idea was to not rush into a war with Iraq to start with, I realize that now that we are there, not invading is no longer an option in Iraq. It may seem unrelated, but I believe establishing a US monetary policy with a gold backed dollar would positively affect US relations with oil producing countries, such as Iraq. Iraq, Iran and Venezuela all either did, do, or have expressed a desire to discontinue accepting dollars for oil, preferring the Euro as the de facto global currency. Why does this matter? The US economy operates with a huge trade deficit. We buy a lot more than we sell, internationally. This leaves a lot of dollars in the hands of those countries we buy from. This is not a big deal as long as the dollar can be traded for things of value from other countries. One of the things of near universal demand that could traditionally be purchased with the dollar in the latter half of the twentieth century is oil. Since foreign countries could take their extra dollars to purchase oil, and they needed oil, they were no worse off for the US trade deficit. However, when oil producing countries refuse to accept dollars for their oil, favoring other currencies, those countries set the unbacked dollar up for failure. They reduce the international demand, and therefore the value, of the dollar. As long as the US uses its military might, instead of gold, to back the dollar, and to force its acceptance by those countries that would otherwise prefer to trade oil for Euros, we are going to have major problems with such countries. Of course, even our military might cannot save us forever. Sooner or later, like a New Orleans levee, a crisis will come along too great to be staved in such a manner. In the interim, if our leaders insist on reacting to international problems in the manner of a schoolyard bully, we will be wholly unprepared for such a crisis. The solution is not as simple as just pulling the troops out. We have to solve underlying problems that we have caused, and stop assigning blame to everyone else. Our irresponsible monetary policy is just one important example of these problems. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!