diverborg

Pretty much what I was thinking, I was just trying to be a little more sensitive about it. I get tired of seeing my tax dollars buy new rims and an in car dvd player for a rusted out 86 Chevy Caprice rather than buy their kids diapers and food. If the money wasn't handed to them, maybe they would think a little longer about what they spent it on, as well as have some concern for their kids' futures because welfare won't be there for them either.

Although I view most of these items as good things, these are the few that both parties would usually agree on. I don't view many of congress's actions as accomplishments if it involves spending more money, going beyond our budget, and in the longterm increasing taxes. This I believe is the basis for what Obama will be pushing for in our country. Anybody can come up with a list of wonderful things in the name of change and hope that are only going to stretch our overspent budget even further. True accomplishment would be solving problems and cutting costs at the same time. Unfortunately, this isn't something we've seen from either party for a very long time. This country has way too many social programs in place already that have become a financial burden and a crutch for a huge portion of our society. Slowly wien the system of some of these programs and you'll start to see people taking a little more personal responsibility. Come visit the southeast for a little while and you'll see the problems that these programs have created. My only wish is that these people that never work and have all this free time to do nothing would at least take a little bit of time once in awhile to pick up the damn trash in their front yard, maybe my town would be a little prettier at least.

Well it has been a very long time, I don't know why I got the urge today to post again. I mainly opened this forum to see if there were any opinions on the Russia/Georgia conflict. I know we have some members on here from that area and I was curious what they had to say. I don't know how, but I then got all tangled up in this thread.

Cool! I'll admit I had made some poor assumptions about you. I know they are completely different scenarios and my only point in the matter was that sometimes we have to make decisions on when its ok to kill. We disagree on the whens, but not on the fact that sometimes its ok. I have a hard time understanding why it is so much more of a stretch to say someone is deserving of death after they commit the crime then before. The perp knows ahead of time that if they committ a heinous murder that their life will likely be taken for it if they are caught. I view it more as a broken rule = consequence, rather than bloodlust and vengeance. I believe it is a fitting punishment for the crime. I'm sure the children this guy has killed wished they had a .44 mag handy.

Well, I could have probably left that part out. Well, lets just say she has a gun then, given the same scenario.

Just wanted to clarify that I don't think the majority of death-penalty proponents would consider the defendant in this case one of our "fellow Americans."

With no disrespect towards you Amazon. I would like to ask a few questions? Lets say someone broke into your house with a gun ready to kill you. I'm guessing you don't like guns so lets say you had a knife nearby. You are very talented martial artist that is fast enough to kill this person with a knife before they can shoot you. Would you kill the person knowing that if you didn't they would kill you. I understand this is an entirely different scenario, but I'm going on the statement that many have made on here which is "nobody deserves to die". I know that not everything in life is black and white, but to say there are no black and whites is absurd. In fact your black and white would be that the death penalty is never ok. My black and white is that yes, certain circumstances call for it. There are certain crimes heinous enough to deserve the death penalty. Its not always about vengeance. I personally think forgiveness is divine and would try with every ounce of my being to forgive someone who killed a loved one of mine. Does that mean they still shouldn't pay the consequences of their actions?, absolutely not. Certain people have lost their right to live, and it is more beneficial to society to do away with them altogether. This is one of those cases. Whether it be a deterrant for others, vengeance for the family, justice, or insurance that he never does it to anybody again. I think these people are a burden to the system and should not be supported by tax dollars in prison, unfortunately our justice system is flawed enough that is is more expensive to actually put the guy down, than to keep him alive.

Well, I have a few questions regarding some stuff said on here. In response to the punishment being determined based on the quality of the evidence I ask this. Maybe this varies state to state (i'm no law expert), but isn't this typically how our courts system actually works with the death penalty? I mean I thought the jurors had to come to a unanimous decision whether the defendant deserves the death penalty. While I don't like the phrase "quality of the evidence" I suppose that could be one factor. I think their decisions are more based on the type of crime committed and whether they feel deep down that this person is undeniably guilty. The video presented in this case is evidence. Now it is probably good quality evidence, but it also shows the horror of what this person actually did. If they see that this is undeniably the guy and the defense had their chance to say why it might not be, as well as they see the terrible things he's done and they choose to go with the death penalty, then where does the "quality of evidence" statement actually contradict the way our legal system works. Rather than "quality of evidence" I like that the punishment is more determined on the "type of evidence". I think that is a more accurate statement to what's being argued here. Not to mention, didn't anybody catch the part where the creep PLEADED GUILTY. How does the "possibly innocent" argument even apply here?

Yup. Thats the theory anyway.

So do you think those that designed this epoxy deserve prison time?, even with all the other construction problems that the report you referenced pointed out. I can only hope that you're not taking that side. Well I gotta try and pull away here, I'm wasting too much time in this forum again. I told myself I wouldn't do this. Will check back later. ttfn

Wow, I hadn't even heard of that one. Well I guess my hopes of that not happening in our country are already crushed.

Thats a tough one Kallend, but I see a big difference between a civil suit from an accident compared to manslaughter charges. I think the concorde issue is quite a bit further of a stretch because they are actually pressing manslaughter charges to the engineers that designed the concorde because it should have had thicker fuel tanks. Not to mention bringing some very circumstantial claims into the case. Should Continental and Aeropostale be liable in a civil case, thats a whole other issue. Should either be liable in a criminal case, thats treading on dangerous ground and will have absolutely no positive outcome on anything, especially the aviation business as a whole. If they started doing this in the states, you're going to find a quick shortage of engineers and mechanics. While this might be normal in some countries, I think this type of event would be a sad day in our country. Sadly this may cause some problems with international flights based from us companies as well as those who work here. And, before you bring up the valujet crash, those are entirely different circumstances because, just having the O2 bottles in the baggage compartment was a criminal act. This is just as bad as the accident in Brazil, where the two american pilots were held on criminal charges for the mid-air collision that could hardly be blamed on them.

Welcome to speakers corner, aka the Roman Colliseum.

Well, I know I haven't posted here in long time, but I'm curious how anybody can think this is a good idea. I guess I expected a little more from a civilized country like France. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25508979

Crap!!! The letter IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII now stiiiiiiicks on my keyboard because IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII just spiiiiiiit my driiiiiiiink out all over my keyboard from laughiiiiiing my ass off after readiiiiiiiiiing thiiiiiiiis.

Took me a little while, but I think I'm following. I knew there would be a scientific explanation to the questions I brought up. If I can recognize certain holes, I'm sure scientists will recognize them as well and do their best to fill them in. I do follow the logic on this post, its still the best possible scientific solution. I don't know how testable this really is, because the evolution that we can observe in our lifetimes cannot account for what's explained in these paragraphs on the large scale needed to fit the entire picture. I can definitely see how punctuated equilibrium influences natural selection, which is something that I don't disagree with one bit. Its still a stretch to me to make the connection between natural selection/adaptation and macro-(I know you guys don't like this word) evolution. This is just gonna be the difference between us. Until some of you actually see/experience God you will never believe in Him. Until I physically see concrete evidence of Macro-evolution. (ie lizard to bird), its gonna be a stretch to me. There is evidence of both (yes I believe mans writings in the bible are evidence not proof) as well as the fossil record as evidence and not proof. We just have a differing opinion of where the evidence points. The one thing that makes us Christians so much more convinced of biblical evidence is that we feel we have experienced God in our lives. (Note-I use the term Christians lightly because I'm not what most would consider a good Christian at this point in my life) Those who don't believe in God would probably never experience Him. I still want to learn everything about evolutionary theory and I'm not saying every bit of it conflicts with what I believe, just certain parts. I have a strong appreciation for science and what its done for the world and do not disbelieve in scientific findings. I just don't completely buy into certain areas which I view as less evident, and are more of a stretch for me to think as being possible.

I'm gonna hafta read this a few times and think about it for awhile before I can post again. Just a little over my head at the moment.

Hey, I didn't make that word up. What difference does it really make. That is their purpose in describing evolution. There needs to be species in between major transitions.

I'm assuming you read this section of the article. But they had some interesting numbers that pointed to certain stages of evolution would have had to happen relatively rapidly to account for the timeline that scientists have created. Basically even the 4.6 billion years isn't enough to account for the change we claim has happend, unless it happened relatively quickly. One of my biggest struggles with understanding evolutionists is the current fossil record. Its claimed that our current fossil record shows the transition of species as we know it. Now even if it were without a doubt true, I still wouldn't expect the fossil record to be perfect so I do take that into account. I'm also not a scientist, but I've taken my share of college level science courses from a state University and I'm not completely ignorant on the subject either. I've done a little studying on the side. I do not retain everything that I've ever learned as this is not my career field. Lets take the evolution of birds from certain dinosaurs to use as an example. We do have plenty of fossils of land dwelling dinosaurs we believe evolved to birds. We also have plenty fossils of birds. Then we have the so called transitional species fossils (ie Archaeopteryx, Sinosauropteryx, and Protarchaeopteryx). I've seen these fossils I know they exist, but there are some serious gaps to fill in between even the dinosaur to any one of these fossils as well as any one of these fossils to birds. The one thing I don't know is actually how many of each of these specific transitional species have been uncovered. But in order for evolution to be such huge cumulation of small scale changes over vast periods of time, then we should have thousands upon thousands of fossils for every tiny stage along the way. Not only would there have to be a way for each transitional species to survive but to reproduce with each mutation before its lost, and somehow pass that "beneficial mutation" onto several members of the following generation. So in order to fit the "slowly" adverb, each mutation would have to take over the species and live for generations before it changed some more. Basically what I'm saying is that either evolution happened a lot quicker at times than what you're saying or we should see just as many fossils of transitional species for the transitional species for the transitional species as we do the from theropods to modern birds. Or neither of the above. Also to add that some on here like to think that evolution of species based on the fossil record is indisputable fact. Fossils are only evidence and not proof. There is no way to prove that any fossil found whether a commonly known species or transitional species ever even reproduced or died as it was before passing on a mutation. What the scientific community has come up with is the best possible explanation based on scientific findings. This is still far from perfect, and one who questions it should hardly be classified as an ignorant lunatic. There are plenty of valid arguments showing problems with modern theory as on the "How it works" website. Some of you have such a strong preconcieved opinion that no opposing argument will ever be considered no matter how valid it may be. Just as some of us "religious, wealthy, ignorant con-men" have our minds made up already too.

Wow, this happened in the town I live in. I was a resident advisor in the dorms for a little while at a nearby college. We had a feminist come speak and we all had to grudgingly listen. She made it clear to us that having sex with a girl that is intoxicated is no different than any other form of rape. This girl may have heard the same speech. What a crock of shit!! It was all I could do to not argue with her. Most decent guys are not gonna pick up some girl that is obviously smashed, but most of the time they're gonna be smashed too. But cmon people were talking prison time and being labeled as a sex offender for life. I'm sure if she refused, that would be her defense so she obviously didn't. If this guy is found guilty this will be a bad trend. Can you imagine how packed the jails would be every Sunday morning if every girl started crying rape because she had drunked regrettable sex?

Incredible, only a few million more years and it will probably become some sort of squirrel. http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=4196495

I made my second post before I saw yours. Well then if it been documented that its happened before, then thats the most believable solution to me. Just seems like a stretch sometimes. BTW- were the other incidents violent explosions, or just combustion.

What's funny is I just checked the site out, and it does talk about the fuel flammability issue. Everything else I looked at was pretty much in one eye and out the other. Given the fuel sensors are going to be at the bottom of the tank, this would mean that the tank would have to me damn near empty for ignition to take place which doesn't seem likely for an oversea flight. I suppose its possible they didn't even need that much in the belly because NY to Paris is actually a relatively short flight for a 747. Still fuel probe wires don't carry that much current and even in heavy fumes I don't see how that small of a spark could possibly cause that kind of explosion. It would be tough for an actual turbine igniter to light off straight fumes or straight fuel for that matter. It ususally takes a fine mist for ignition. But I suppose its all easier to believe than a shoulder launched missile. I bet it was a bomb on board, yeah thats it. Had to be a bomb.

I'm not a big conspiracy theory buff, and usually laugh in the face of theorists, but I've always had trouble buying the ntsb's report of this wreck. I'm a jet mechanic for a living and there is really only one aspect of the accident I don't really understand. The only thing that I don't understand is how the wiring problem actually lit off a tank of jet fuel. I haven't been interested enough to study the whole report, but the only way that tank could explode is if its pretty much empty and mostly fumes remained. This maybe the case, but this plane just took off for an oversea flight. It takes some serious ignition to light off a turbine engine that has the perfect amount of emulsified fuel spraying into the combustion chamber. Too much fuel or too little fuel, and a turbine engine ain't gonna light even with some serious high voltage/amperage ignition that will kill you if touched. Granted there is a lot of airflow moving through that does make it different from a stagnant fuel tank. Every jet I've ever worked on has wires all over in every fuel tank that runs to the probes and pumps and whatever. You can put a match out in jet fuel, and the fumes aren't even that easy to ignite either. I would think if a couple little wires to a fuel probe could ignite a tank of jet fuel than we'd be seeing this problem more often. I usually work on smaller jets, so I don't know much about boeings or the whole accident report for that matter. I suppose anythings possible when given countless opportunities, but this ones just a bit of stretch for me to buy. Then again so is a missile. So I pretty much just go with what the ntsb says.

Sadly this is a lot more common that we hear, and sadly this is just part of flying. My girlfriend was stuck on a plane for almost 9 hours in Omaha while waiting for a window in the weather that never came. They deboarded the plane after 9 hours and cancelled the flight. This was just over new years and this never made the news. I've personally been stuck on the ground for 4 hours and I didn't get any media attention. Yep it sux ass, but you're not gonna die so just chill out. There really is no solution to weather related problems like these because they just want to make schedule so they are trying to keep people happy and catch that window. I would wait on a plane for 4 hours almost in any circumstance if that was the only way to make that flight. Its better than getting canceled, put in a hotel and not even leaving till the next day if ur lucky. Now the no A/C thing I can kinda understand if ur sick or elderly or such. Not sure what they should've done in that situation, but if they thought they'd be airborn soon enough then the a/c wouldn't have mattered in flight. Now the way I've been treated by the airlines and its employees over other situations is a whole other story. I found out you can flat out talk to your customers like they're your puppy and thats ok these days. Ahhh, thankfully we still have Southwest Airlines. Too bad their schedule and destinations is somewhat limited.