Solutions thread

[acludem]

And? Did that relationship produce a child? So then it provided nothing to society. I don't think government should be in the marriage business, period. Churches should decide who gets married. Its handout programs like Social Security and the like that even make this an issue.

So only couples who can conceive children should be allowed to marry. Couples who, for whatever reason, can't have children should be denied the benefits and responsibilities of the legal version of marriage.

No emergency room in America will turn away a person in need. Then after the fact its often paid for through welfare insurance anyway so we basically do have universal healthcare and it still sucks. The people with money have to pay for their own insurance as well as everyone elses through taxes.

It would be far, far cheaper to pay for basic insurance for these kids to go to the regular doctor instead of the ER. The average cost of an ER visit is $360.00 and the average cost of a doctor visit is $55.00 according to https://www.healthy.net/aipm/store/CategoryInfo.asp?CatCode=2&SubCatCode=0 Which is cheaper???

Land developers? Maybe loggers at one point but National PArks are protected by the constitution. However, if natural resources are needed, like oil, then i think we need to pursue these resources for the sake of the country.

Land developers. As suburban sprawl intesifies throughout the country, national parks and monuments are becoming hemmed in because greedy developers buy up the land around them and put 2,000 houses or a Wal-Mart Supercenter on it. National parks and monuments should have some sort of buffer, preferably at least a couple of miles, where major development is not allowed. As for pursuing oil, quite simply, NO! We need to find alternative, environmentally friendly resources. The answer to every energy problem isn't to turn over precious, irreplaceable natural resources to big corporations who exploit them for profit.

So in 6 years, all the clean air is now gone in America? I'm all for environmental concerns like the obvious, not dumping polution into water supplies and limiting the toxins in smoke stacks, but environmentalists need to be realistic. 100% clean air is not a possibility ever again.

In six years the Bush administration has done more damage to the environment than was repaired and prevented in the 100 years since Teddy Roosevelt, the original environmentalist president was in office. I can't honestly quantify this statement, but when you look at the overall number of stories, global warming, super hurricanes, melting glaciers, etc.

I agree with the means to achieve and the security. Pay and benefits are NOT needed. The average salary for teachers here in PA is $55,000 and that comes in most towns with full benefits. Getting a job in PA as a teacher is almost impossible.

PA is in the minority paying teachers that much, and frankly, teachers deserve to be making even more than that. Many work in excess of 70 hours a week, and often buy their own classroom supplies.

I go back and forth. Capital punishment should be left to God in my mind but on the other hand, some people need to be removed from society, period. Some people can't even coeexist with prisoners and those people need to be removed if the crime suits the punishment (1st degree murder, REAL child rape, etc)

But the real question is, should we have a system whereby the possibility exists that an innocent person could be killed for a crime they didn't commit?

:rotflmao: Ok. Yes lets stop the 1 judge thats been trying to keep the activists in check and the newest judge on the court who has yet to prove himself. Im sure you have proof of the activism right?

Alito's record in PA was one of blatant conservative judicial activism. He frequently sought to rewrite law from the bench to limit rights and liberties. This is the judge who said it was just fine to strip search a 10 year old child. Thomas (along with tag team partner Scalia) have been the most conservative, judicially active justices on the court.

Church and state were never meant to be separated in your ideal. Separation of church and state is an idea that was fabricated long after the constitution was created. The original intent of the constitution is to not create any laws that restrict the practice of any religion. That was purposely worded to not allow a state run religion but still be able to allow government officials the right to practice their faith without discrimination from the government to do so. The only thing thats been wrong lately has been the judicial branches unconstitutional measures to discriminate against christian ideals by individuals within the government. These government officials and state run buildings have a right to display all materials that they deem fit. They do not restrict the fair practice of any other religion when a display of the 10 commandments are on the wall of a courthouse. They do not restrict the fair practice of any religion when a giant cross is on the hill of a city founded by christian missionaries in California. These objects of historical significance are being removed in the name of "separation of church and state" when they violate the fair practice of religion without discrimination from the government. The ACLU and those like them seek to create a theocracy of Atheism where worship of God is punished by the government in schools, government buildings, courthouses and any other place of government. This is the most unconstitutional thing to occur in the 230 year history of this country. The founding fathers would be disgusted at the current state of the judicial branch in this country.

It's not about restricting religious practice. Religion was specifically and intentionally left out of the Constitution because our founders wanted a secular government. They firmly believed that religion ought to stay out of government and government ought to stay out of religion. Erecting Christian symbols may not "restrict practice" but it does render non-Christians unable to use public facilities without fear of retribution and harassment. The erection of Christian symbols is designed to harrass and intimidate non-Christians by making it clear that the government does not approve of their religion. When someone walks into a courthouse, they have reasonable expectation that they will be treated fairly. If a Muslim walks in and sees the Christian Ten Commandments posted, how in the world can he then expect a fair hearing? You're right our founders would be disgusted, that people are trying to use the government to force their religion on other people. They would be horrified at how conservatives try and twist their words and the words of the Constitution to deny people basic civil rights and liberties. They would be angry at those who call themselves "originalists" and then fail to see that the founders intentionally wrote the Constitution to be firm enough to hold against tyranny, but to be flexible enough to change with the time, that's the genius of it.

acludem

 

[insein]

So only couples who can conceive children should be allowed to marry. Couples who, for whatever reason, can't have children should be denied the benefits and responsibilities of the legal version of marriage.

I personally don't have a problem with gays marrying as i think its a trivial issue, but i dont like revisionist history that makes it seem like every important person over the course of the last 2000 years was gay. Ive even heard stories where someone wrote that Abe Lincoln was gay.

Marriage is a religious sacrament. If we didnt have programs like social security and the like that give benefits from the government to spouses then we wouldnt need to be discussing gay marriage legality. They could find a church or religion that wants to marry them on their own or live their lives with their partner without any fear of losing money.

It would be far, far cheaper to pay for basic insurance for these kids to go to the regular doctor instead of the ER. The average cost of an ER visit is $360.00 and the average cost of a doctor visit is $55.00 according to https://www.healthy.net/aipm/store/CategoryInfo.asp?CatCode=2&SubCatCode=0 Which is cheaper???

Not paying either. Help the poor by not giving them handouts. This forces them to get jobs and pay for themselves. It would also reduce the number of kids they have since they wouldnt be able to afford them.

Land developers. As suburban sprawl intesifies throughout the country, national parks and monuments are becoming hemmed in because greedy developers buy up the land around them and put 2,000 houses or a Wal-Mart Supercenter on it. National parks and monuments should have some sort of buffer, preferably at least a couple of miles, where major development is not allowed. As for pursuing oil, quite simply, NO! We need to find alternative, environmentally friendly resources. The answer to every energy problem isn't to turn over precious, irreplaceable natural resources to big corporations who exploit them for profit.

I understand that but the answer to creating a buffer is declaring more area National Park space. Since they already declared the land to be National Park Space, then that in and of itself is the buffer. As for the new energy resources, i'm all for it. We absolutley need a new energy source. However, we can't all sit around driving prius' till we find one. We need our own oil. Its suicidal to be buying oil from the muslims when we have our own that we don't use.

In six years the Bush administration has done more damage to the environment than was repaired and prevented in the 100 years since Teddy Roosevelt, the original environmentalist president was in office. I can't honestly quantify this statement, but when you look at the overall number of stories, global warming, super hurricanes, melting glaciers, etc.

By that logic then we can count the number of stories done on topics and count that as a reliable source for accurate numbers. Your smarter than that. Give me your numbers where you got it from. There is no way you can possibly quantify 6 years vs 150 of industrial advances as being worse or better. 6 years is to short a period of time to measure something of that scale. ITs not like Jan 2001 the air immediately got worse and worse till today and was exceptionally better in Dec 2000.

PA is in the minority paying teachers that much, and frankly, teachers deserve to be making even more than that. Many work in excess of 70 hours a week, and often buy their own classroom supplies.

Like i said, i agree with that assessment. My fiance is a teacher. I know what she goes through. The kids are assholes with no respect for anyone. The admin's give you no support or supplies. She grades papers endlessly for kids that mostly fail anyway. They force her to teach retarded subjects like African American studies instead of spending more time in Math and Reading where her 6th graders are at about a 3rd grade level. They do get paid terribly but the unions arent helping them by artificially inflating certain positions pay and decreasing other areas. Then they only worry about pay. If a student threatens to kill you, your expected to talk to them and calm them down. Just dont call the cops or it might cost you your job. Public Education is extremely broken.

But the real question is, should we have a system whereby the possibility exists that an innocent person could be killed for a crime they didn't commit?

Nope. DNA should be mandatory where applicable. I agreed with you there. We need capital punishment for the most heinous criminals that just dont fit into society. Paying to feed and house people that will never be rehabilitated is not smart.

Alito's record in PA was one of blatant conservative judicial activism. He frequently sought to rewrite law from the bench to limit rights and liberties. This is the judge who said it was just fine to strip search a 10 year old child. Thomas (along with tag team partner Scalia) have been the most conservative, judicially active justices on the court.

If by judicially active you mean following the constitution as it is written then you are correct.

It's not about restricting religious practice. Religion was specifically and intentionally left out of the Constitution because our founders wanted a secular government. They firmly believed that religion ought to stay out of government and government ought to stay out of religion. Erecting Christian symbols may not "restrict practice" but it does render non-Christians unable to use public facilities without fear of retribution and harassment. The erection of Christian symbols is designed to harrass and intimidate non-Christians by making it clear that the government does not approve of their religion.

It absolutely does NOT. Its a historical artifact that represents our founding fathers and where our laws are based upon. People are not discriminated against based on religion by the government. Christian symbols on a judges desk do not symbolize that you have no chance if your a christian any more then a pray rug on the floor of muslim judges office or the torah in a jewish judges office means that your hopes are all lost if you arent their religion. Otherwise why have trials. If you arent the same religion as the judge then by your logic, you lost.

When someone walks into a courthouse, they have reasonable expectation that they will be treated fairly. If a Muslim walks in and sees the Christian Ten Commandments posted, how in the world can he then expect a fair hearing?

First of all the 10 commandments were created by Jews not christians. Its old testement. Secondly, see above.

You're right our founders would be disgusted, that people are trying to use the government to force their religion on other people. They would be horrified at how conservatives try and twist their words and the words of the Constitution to deny people basic civil rights and liberties. They would be angry at those who call themselves "originalists" and then fail to see that the founders intentionally wrote the Constitution to be firm enough to hold against tyranny, but to be flexible enough to change with the time, that's the genius of it.

Yes against the kind of tyranny that you and the ACLU are wielding. You are trying to bend the will of the people to adjust to the minority not in tollerance but in subjugation. The government hasnt passed any laws restricting the practice of ANY religion in this country since its inception. There have been numerous laws based on public morality and safety, alot i personally don't agree with, that have been passed but they arent restricting the practice of any religion. They are merely reflecting the views of the populace. Let me refresh you with the 1st ammendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As well as the Declaration of independence

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--

To this date, there have been no laws created that respect ANY religion above another and there are no laws that restrict the free exercise there of. The only religion lately that has been having laws created respecting itself above all others is Atheism. The insistance by the government to remove all mentions of God from our history is an attempt by a religion, Atheism, to create a society where religion is to be feared and those who practice should be looked at differently. This is the absolute opposite of what the founders wanted. They wanted people to not fear the government's wraith when it came to their faith. They also wanted people in government to be able to practice their faith without fear from their peers of practicing the wrong faith. Their belief was that all men are created equal and that no man can take away their inalienable rights. To say that a secular government that denies the existence of God is what the founders wanted is to rewrite history. The founders wanted their rights to be guranteed by God, whatever god that a citizen believed in. That way no man could take these rights from them.

 

[Niccolò Matteo]

Since the dawn of time man has requested but one thing, freedom; and when these requests were granted, only good things came.

Why would America be any different?

 

[Mr.Conley]

That has to be imported from countries that can mass produce those crops.

Wrong. Cellulostic ethanal is derived from agricultural waste, such as corn stalks, and switchgrass can be grown in abundence on the US and Canadian Great Plains without any fertilizer. Of course is won't be enough to wean us off oil, but it's a start.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Wrong. Cellulostic ethanal is derived from agricultural waste, such as corn stalks, and switchgrass can be grown in abundence on the US and Canadian Great Plains without any fertilizer. Of course is won't be enough to wean us off oil, but it's a start.

That's what I'm saying. We cannot grow enough of it to fuel our nation b/c of the low amount of joules that it produces. So we would have to rely on foreign farmers to pick up our slack.

 

[acludem]

I personally don't have a problem with gays marrying as i think its a trivial issue, but i dont like revisionist history that makes it seem like every important person over the course of the last 2000 years was gay. Ive even heard stories where someone wrote that Abe Lincoln was gay.

Marriage is a religious sacrament. If we didnt have programs like social security and the like that give benefits from the government to spouses then we wouldnt need to be discussing gay marriage legality. They could find a church or religion that wants to marry them on their own or live their lives with their partner without any fear of losing money.





Not paying either. Help the poor by not giving them handouts. This forces them to get jobs and pay for themselves. It would also reduce the number of kids they have since they wouldnt be able to afford them.



I understand that but the answer to creating a buffer is declaring more area National Park space. Since they already declared the land to be National Park Space, then that in and of itself is the buffer. As for the new energy resources, i'm all for it. We absolutley need a new energy source. However, we can't all sit around driving prius' till we find one. We need our own oil. Its suicidal to be buying oil from the muslims when we have our own that we don't use.



By that logic then we can count the number of stories done on topics and count that as a reliable source for accurate numbers. Your smarter than that. Give me your numbers where you got it from. There is no way you can possibly quantify 6 years vs 150 of industrial advances as being worse or better. 6 years is to short a period of time to measure something of that scale. ITs not like Jan 2001 the air immediately got worse and worse till today and was exceptionally better in Dec 2000.



Like i said, i agree with that assessment. My fiance is a teacher. I know what she goes through. The kids are assholes with no respect for anyone. The admin's give you no support or supplies. She grades papers endlessly for kids that mostly fail anyway. They force her to teach retarded subjects like African American studies instead of spending more time in Math and Reading where her 6th graders are at about a 3rd grade level. They do get paid terribly but the unions arent helping them by artificially inflating certain positions pay and decreasing other areas. Then they only worry about pay. If a student threatens to kill you, your expected to talk to them and calm them down. Just dont call the cops or it might cost you your job. Public Education is extremely broken.




Nope. DNA should be mandatory where applicable. I agreed with you there. We need capital punishment for the most heinous criminals that just dont fit into society. Paying to feed and house people that will never be rehabilitated is not smart.



If by judicially active you mean following the constitution as it is written then you are correct.



It absolutely does NOT. Its a historical artifact that represents our founding fathers and where our laws are based upon. People are not discriminated against based on religion by the government. Christian symbols on a judges desk do not symbolize that you have no chance if your a christian any more then a pray rug on the floor of muslim judges office or the torah in a jewish judges office means that your hopes are all lost if you arent their religion. Otherwise why have trials. If you arent the same religion as the judge then by your logic, you lost.



First of all the 10 commandments were created by Jews not christians. Its old testement. Secondly, see above.



Yes against the kind of tyranny that you and the ACLU are wielding. You are trying to bend the will of the people to adjust to the minority not in tollerance but in subjugation. The government hasnt passed any laws restricting the practice of ANY religion in this country since its inception. There have been numerous laws based on public morality and safety, alot i personally don't agree with, that have been passed but they arent restricting the practice of any religion. They are merely reflecting the views of the populace. Let me refresh you with the 1st ammendment.



As well as the Declaration of independence



To this date, there have been no laws created that respect ANY religion above another and there are no laws that restrict the free exercise there of. The only religion lately that has been having laws created respecting itself above all others is Atheism. The insistance by the government to remove all mentions of God from our history is an attempt by a religion, Atheism, to create a society where religion is to be feared and those who practice should be looked at differently. This is the absolute opposite of what the founders wanted. They wanted people to not fear the government's wraith when it came to their faith. They also wanted people in government to be able to practice their faith without fear from their peers of practicing the wrong faith. Their belief was that all men are created equal and that no man can take away their inalienable rights. To say that a secular government that denies the existence of God is what the founders wanted is to rewrite history. The founders wanted their rights to be guranteed by God, whatever god that a citizen believed in. That way no man could take these rights from them.

The Declaration of Independence was never designed to be a governing or even a guiding document. It was a brilliant piece of propaganda designed to whip up support for the Revolution. The guy who wrote it, Thomas Jefferson, was a deist and an ardent suppoerter of Separation of church and state. As for Christian symbols, you may not see this as harassment, but those who put them there have one purpose in mind, conversion of the non-believer. I'm talking about giant crosses, the Ten Commandments (whatever version you subscribe to), etc. Sure, if you have a historic display in your courthouse, the Ten Commandments could certainly be displayed. But those who have tried to post them want the to be the first thing you see when you walk in the door. That's a form of religious intimidation pure and simple. Roy Moore wanted to be clear that non-Christians would not get a fair shake in his (and I suppose in his mind God's) courthouse. If the founding fathers had meant for this to be a Christian nation with a Christian government they'd have put it in the Constitution. They didn't. They left it out for a reason. They wanted a government free from entanglement with religion. There was a bill in the late 18th century in the Viriginia State Assembly to give certain priviliges to Christian ministers and to tax to pay for Christian schools and to give Christian schools certain tax exemptions. It was sponsored by one Patrick Henry. A man named James Madison opposed it. Madison won the debate. At that time the Governor of Virginia was Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson supported Madison's liberal position. Which two of these men eventually became Presidents of the United States? Which two are regarded in history as two of the true founding fathers of our nation?

 

[Niccolò Matteo]

Wrong. Cellulostic ethanal is derived from agricultural waste, such as corn stalks, and switchgrass can be grown in abundence on the US and Canadian Great Plains without any fertilizer. Of course is won't be enough to wean us off oil, but it's a start.

Interestingly enough, I've read that hemp/marijuana can actually produce more ethanal than corn stalks, and switch grass.

Yet another way the war on drugs is hurting Americans.

 

[insein]

The Declaration of Independence was never designed to be a governing or even a guiding document. It was a brilliant piece of propaganda designed to whip up support for the Revolution. The guy who wrote it, Thomas Jefferson, was a deist and an ardent suppoerter of Separation of church and state. As for Christian symbols, you may not see this as harassment, but those who put them there have one purpose in mind, conversion of the non-believer. I'm talking about giant crosses, the Ten Commandments (whatever version you subscribe to), etc. Sure, if you have a historic display in your courthouse, the Ten Commandments could certainly be displayed. But those who have tried to post them want the to be the first thing you see when you walk in the door. That's a form of religious intimidation pure and simple. Roy Moore wanted to be clear that non-Christians would not get a fair shake in his (and I suppose in his mind God's) courthouse. If the founding fathers had meant for this to be a Christian nation with a Christian government they'd have put it in the Constitution. They didn't. They left it out for a reason. They wanted a government free from entanglement with religion. There was a bill in the late 18th century in the Viriginia State Assembly to give certain priviliges to Christian ministers and to tax to pay for Christian schools and to give Christian schools certain tax exemptions. It was sponsored by one Patrick Henry. A man named James Madison opposed it. Madison won the debate. At that time the Governor of Virginia was Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson supported Madison's liberal position. Which two of these men eventually became Presidents of the United States? Which two are regarded in history as two of the true founding fathers of our nation?

Just because an idea was religious does not make it conservative. Jefferson and Madison acted conservatively by keeping the current system in place. To give special treatment to a specific religion violated the constitution and therefore that was the Liberal ideal or "changing" ideal. Your paranoia and those of the aclu is what fuels the religious persecution in this country. You are the ones trying to create a theocracy free from God.

 

[acludem]

When I said "liberal" position, I meant that Madison position was "liberal" in the sense that he was opposing the old system, which Patrick was updating. Liberal and conservatives as we know them today, didn't exist in that day.

Theocracy by its definition includes god. Theos is the greek for God. You can't have an atheist theocracy. The terms are mutually exclusive. I'm not seeking to impose atheism on anyone. I am a religious person, but I'm not Christian, I'm Buddhist. No one is saying you can't be Christian. What I am saying is that government should not be Christian, which is the ultimate goal of the far right in this country. They want to create the new CSA: Christian States of America.

acludem

 

[dilloduck]

When I said "liberal" position, I meant that Madison position was "liberal" in the sense that he was opposing the old system, which Patrick was updating. Liberal and conservatives as we know them today, didn't exist in that day.

Theocracy by its definition includes god. Theos is the greek for God. You can't have an atheist theocracy. The terms are mutually exclusive. I'm not seeking to impose atheism on anyone. I am a religious person, but I'm not Christian, I'm Buddhist. No one is saying you can't be Christian. What I am saying is that government should not be Christian, which is the ultimate goal of the far right in this country. They want to create the new CSA: Christian States of America.

acludem

How does Buddhism suggest you deal with things that you find offensive?

 

[acludem]

Buddhism suggests that if I am offended, I find the way within to deal with the without. That being said, I'm not "offended" by giant crosses or the Ten Commandments on government property. They make me angry and sad. I get angry that people want to use government property, that which belongs to us all, to promote their personal religion. I'm sad that they are so insecure in their own belief system that they have to use government property to prop themselves and their belief systems up. I know plenty of Christians who oppose such displays. Why do Christians (and it's primarily, almost excuslively Christians that do this stuff) constantly have to throw their religion into everyone's face? Why can't they be content to practice and enjoy their relationships with their God and their church and leave the rest of us alone to practice our religions? Why do they constantly seek to use the power of government to enforce their personal moral code on society?

acludem

 

[Mr.Conley]

That's what I'm saying. We cannot grow enough of it to fuel our nation b/c of the low amount of joules that it produces. So we would have to rely on foreign farmers to pick up our slack.

It's not an all-or-nothing deal. Cellulostic ethanol can provide probably 20-40% of our transportations needs, enough to elimanate our Middle East dependency and hold us over until hydrogen becomes a possiblity.

 

[CharlestonChad]

It's not an all-or-nothing deal. Cellulostic ethanol can provide probably 20-40% of our transportations needs, enough to elimanate our Middle East dependency and hold us over until hydrogen becomes a possiblity.

So which transportation industry should be "influenced" to switch cellulostic ethanol?

Even if it's possible to farm this crop w/o fertilizer, if there is a chance that it will be more abundant with fertilization, then the government will pressure the farmers to do so. It's what is happening now, and has happened in the past.

 

[Mr.Conley]

So which transportation industry should be "influenced" to switch cellulostic ethanol?

No need. Cellulose ethanol can uses the E85 engines that GM and Ford are already churning out.

Even if it's possible to farm this crop w/o fertilizer, if there is a chance that it will be more abundant with fertilization, then the government will pressure the farmers to do so. It's what is happening now, and has happened in the past.

What are you saying? We shouldn't use switchgrass because the government or farmer might want to use fertilizer?

 

[MtnBiker]

It is my understanding that switch grass can be fermented via enzyme, where as the corn ethonal process uses heat or energy to be fermented. Thus making switch grass much more efficient. I would think that switch grass would also be much quicker growing and easier to harvest.

 

[CharlestonChad]

No need. Cellulose ethanol can uses the E85 engines that GM and Ford are already churning out.


What are you saying? We shouldn't use switchgrass because the government or farmer might want to use fertilizer?

Oh my bad, I left out half of my post.

The pressure to mass produce corn right now has caused over fertilization, which washes into rivers and streams destroying wildlife. Since we use corn for a rediculous amout of food products, the gov't pressures the farmers to over fertilize to keep up with the demand. This washes into the Mississippi river and flows into the gulf.

http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanwater/waterquality/deadzone.asp