random evil guy

given that islamic religions did not exist until Muhammad in the late 500s, and that current day palestinians do not have much in the way of a common heritage or lineage, it will be difficult to argue that any other than jewish (more appropriately hebrew) people were there first. it is more than plausible (probable, probably) that many owe their original heritage to the jews in the first place, however, which is a strange irony. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> well, good thing i'm not talking about religion then. the semites lived in that region probably prior to the beginning of Judaism. both palestinians and israelis are decendants. btw, the term jew is just a semite who believes in judaism...

The Jews were. One of the Roman Emporers deported the whole country. Got to love the irony. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> well, both the palestinians and the jews are semites, so one could argue they were both there thousends of years ago. however, it isn't really clear as to who were there first.

exactly and that's the whole problem. israel shouldn't be there. the founding of israel was a huge mistake and i don't think it'll ever be really resolved...

the a-team episode was probably the best segment on tv ever. including seinfeld.

http://www.variety.com/article/VR111793458...38&cs=1&s=h&p=0 WUHU! best show on tv right now. along with family guy of course...

oh and btw, chances are a european team will win the world cup. the only time a non-european side won the world cup when a european country hosted the cup, was in 1958 when brazil won the wc in sweden. if i remember correctly they beat sweden 5-2... italy, germany and brazil are the favorites, but holland, france, spain, argentina and even england can win the cup as well. should be a very interesting tournament...

it's a tough group for the us. italy are the clear favourites, but the czech republic is a very strong side as well. the us and ghana should be a piece of cake for said nations...

actually it is. bush catching up on his reading?!? not bloody likely...

if he existed, he was born in the summer. more or less... btw, christmas is really a pagan holiday which the church/christians stole..

admitting to being a troll are we...?

wouldn't mis directed sarcasm be off? well directed sarcasm would be 'on'...

That shows you how intelligent and rational they are... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> yeah it does. so your sarcasm is way off...

however, their beliefs always 'came before' their scientific explorations and secular thinking. that way, the choice to believe in a god isn't rational. afterwards, they try to explain/defend/justify their beliefs with some fancy semantic and such. you won't find many intelligent and rational atheists converting...

screw notes. just read the text book(assuming you have one) and whatever extra papers your teacher/professor/whatever has handed out. only good thing about lecture notes, is that you get a rough idea about what's relevant in terms of the final exam...

i don't even know why there is any debate(well, i do 'know', but i don't understand it...). science belongs in science class, while religion belongs in religion class. shouldn't really be any debate. ID isn't a scientific theory, ergo it can't be taught in science class. btw, am i the only one frustrated by creationists who seem to think 'theory' equals 'guess'...? 'earth revolves around the sun' is also a theory...

studies have shown prayer does not work. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4681771.stm if the patients are unaware of the study, prayer does not work. the few studies which have a 'mixed' result is due to the placebo effect and statistical anomalies...

anyone who interprets the bible literally...

first of all, define freeloaders and then provide some source that proves there are many of them. second; do you accept the fact that people are different? if so, you also accept the fact that some people will never make it. it doesn't matter if it's nature or nurture; it's still not their own fault. people don't decide when and where they're born. most people do try, but some will never make it. no matter what. it all boils down to this, do you care about others? if so, the best way to help the 'less fortunate' is through taxes and government help. private charity have never worked. just look at contries like japan and taiwan. sure, they have had some economic growth, but the entire society is filled with hatred for the poor. in countries with private chairity, the poor live only on the 'kindness' of the wealthy. they aren't considered members of society, only a burden. to me, as a humanitarian, that is an unacceptable attitude.

1.how many freeloaders are there? 2.so what if there is a minority of freeloaders; does that mean one shouldn't help the ones who are just too stupid, mentally or physically challenged, weak, poor, sick etc etc. let me put it this way: do you acknowledge the fact that people are different due to both nature and nurture? if so, you also acknowledge the fact that some people will never be successful. because people are different, it isn't their fault. they were just born that way. the left takes this into consideration and provides help through tax income from everyone else. it's not like everyone is supposed to be equal(socialism), but to balance out the differences somewhat through government funded programs such as public schools and universal health care. the right wing has one of two problems. either they accept the fact that people are different, but just don't care or their entire political view is based on flawed logic(i.e. everyone have the same opportunities to 'make it').

no, it's not and you obviously don't know what straw man is. don't use terms you don't understand. the argument is the same, if the country can afford, it irrelevant of when, why should they spend money on universal health care. why is that a problem? i'm not the one claiming anything, other than the fact that medicare is more efficient than private insurance companies. you, on the other hand, haven't provided a single source for your claims. telling me to go look something up, is not providing a source. there, you've learned something today as well... they all say that medicare spend less on administrative costs than private insurance companies. what other definition of ineffeciency do you want to use? remember, it has to be measurable. probably continue working on my phd in theoretical statistics. unless i decide to continue in abstract algebra. again, you didn't answer my question. i'll repeat: what about all those too stupid, poor, weak, physicall/mentally handicapped etc etc. should the government 'mother' them or just leave them alone to themselves? not really. you've said government should protect us, but not baby us. you've said there are rich countries that can spend money on socialist concepts such as universal health care. however, no reasoning behind these claims. no documentation that supports your case. sure, you're entitled to your opinions but i'd expect you to be able to argue for them... guess not. wrong again. i've not made a single claim concering socialism, other than the fact that nazism and socialism is very different(you learned something yesterday as well!). to get back on topic: why shouldn't the us have universal health care? could just cut spending on the millitary for instance...

uh, a VERY long time ago, and our economy was VERY different then. straw man argument anyway, since we aren't there now, are we (do you need a definition for straw man?) taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> you sure you know what 'straw man' really is? my question is not straw man, it is principal. to put in terms even you can understand: IF the us had a surplus, would you support a universal health care? we'll leave the rest alone for now as you for one, doesn't provide sources for your claims(i won't check your facts...). second, medicare is more efficient. administrative costs are much lower(the ones i found after just 1 search): http://www.pnhp.org/news/2003/june/private_medicare_pla.php http://www.kucinich.us/issues/universalhealth.php http://www.adaction.org/BriefMedicare503.htm and those who aren't smart enough...?

uh, excuse me? we have a trade deficit nearing a trilliion dollars. other way around. in simple terms, that means we import more than we export. big difference. do you actually read the news? taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> sorry, forgot about that. bush f*cked the economy. however, the us used to have a surplus. why couldn't they employ a universal health care then? btw, your claim is that a trade surplus is necessary to provide universal health care. source please or at least some logical reasoning behind that...

too many quotations... so i'll just post the relevanat ones here: there is a difference between opinions and actual claims. your opinions are based on your claims, so you should be able to provide sources to prove them. source for both claims, please. objetivism is inane ramblings. to claim there are objective truths in a society is just foolish. moral and values are subjective... sure. keep in mind the fact that i.e. medicare is more efficient than private insurance companies. why?

denmark and sweden have more exports than imports, and i clearly stated that. please review. taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> so do the us. again, what's your point?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> i did not say socialism was nazism, i said nazism is based on socialism. the economic system was socialist. again with the reading comprehension thing... taks <{POST_SNAPBACK}> no, you said nazism is socialism.