avicoh1

Batallian: thank you. As to the original post. Interesting idea, but no. I have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul--he's standing up for what he believes in. And yes, running mates should have somewhat differing views in order to attract a wider voting bloc. However, Ron Paul and Barack Obama are completely opposite in one respect: Paul is for almost 100% state sovereignty; Obama is for big government. There's no way those two could work well together.

Batallian: thank you.

As to the original post. Interesting idea, but no. I have a great deal of respect for Ron Paul--he's standing up for what he believes in. And yes, running mates should have somewhat differing views in order to attract a wider voting bloc. However, Ron Paul and Barack Obama are completely opposite in one respect: Paul is for almost 100% state sovereignty; Obama is for big government. There's no way those two could work well together.

This is a little sketchy.

This is a little sketchy.

The Pentagon has banned Google Earth teams from making detailed street-level video maps of U.S. military bases.

A message sent to all Defense Department bases and installations around the country late last week told officials to not allow the popular mapping Web site from taking panoramic views inside the facilities.

Michael Kucharek, spokesman for U.S. Northern Command, told The Associated Press on Thursday that the decision was made after crews were allowed access to at least one base. He said military officials were concerned that allowing the 360-degree, street-level video could provide sensitive information to potential adversaries and endanger base personnel.

His comments came just a few days after published reports suggested that protesters used Google Earth to help plot their access to the roof of the Parliament building in London.

    <p>The Pentagon has banned Google Earth teams from making detailed street-level video maps of U.S. military bases.</p>

A message sent to all Defense Department bases and installations around the country late last week told officials to not allow the popular mapping Web site from taking panoramic views inside the facilities.

Michael Kucharek, spokesman for U.S. Northern Command, told The Associated Press on Thursday that the decision was made after crews were allowed access to at least one base. He said military officials were concerned that allowing the 360-degree, street-level video could provide sensitive information to potential adversaries and endanger base personnel.

His comments came just a few days after published reports suggested that protesters used Google Earth to help plot their access to the roof of the Parliament building in London.

    <br class="clear-both"/>

I wish we had a multi-party system--it works better. But we don't. And this is SO not the election to be messing with! I love Obama's comment though.

I wish we had a multi-party system--it works better. But we don't. And this is SO not the election to be messing with! I love Obama's comment though.

So... let's start the debate!

So... let's start the debate!

jzeitler says:

"Are you serious? We have been dealing with all the Bull**** of Bush for the last eight years and now you want someone in the White House that wod't even give the proper respect to the flag. Barack Obama is nothing but a terrorist on the inside. If he becomes our next president, the people of Iraq will have a president, not us. THE IS MUSLIM!! I am not racist but I am American. If a presidential candidate cannot even extend the proper courtesy to our flag then he SHOULD NOT be our next president. Hillary Clinton has made her position known since long before Obama was in the picture and then all of a sudden everything he says sounds like an echo of Hillary, he nothing but a scam artist and our country is DOOMED if he is our next president."

It's people like you, jzeitler, that make terrorists WANT to attack the U.S.

jzeitler says:

"Are you serious? We have been dealing with all the Bull**** of Bush for the last eight years and now you want someone in the White House that wod't even give the proper respect to the flag. Barack Obama is nothing but a terrorist on the inside. If he becomes our next president, the people of Iraq will have a president, not us. THE IS MUSLIM!! I am not racist but I am American. If a presidential candidate cannot even extend the proper courtesy to our flag then he SHOULD NOT be our next president. Hillary Clinton has made her position known since long before Obama was in the picture and then all of a sudden everything he says sounds like an echo of Hillary, he nothing but a scam artist and our country is DOOMED if he is our next president."

It's people like you, jzeitler, that make terrorists WANT to attack the U.S.

I agree with HopeNation. It's a bit TOO much government interference, in my opinion. Obama's plan, as has been said already, is ambitious, but it protects everyone while not becoming too Big Brother-ish.

I agree with HopeNation. It's a bit TOO much government interference, in my opinion. Obama's plan, as has been said already, is ambitious, but it protects everyone while not becoming too Big Brother-ish.

That sounds nuts, but there's an argument that it is.

I hope there will be a time that no one has to resort to prostitution in order to make a living--I think the government should work toward making that time NOW.

But I think that making prostitution illegal is just frivolous, kind of stupid, and INCREDIBLY pointless.

That sounds nuts, but there's an argument that it is.

I hope there will be a time that no one has to resort to prostitution in order to make a living--I think the government should work toward making that time NOW.

But I think that making prostitution illegal is just frivolous, kind of stupid, and INCREDIBLY pointless.

I agree that we need a multi-party system, but not necessarily five parties--I don't know how many would work best, but they've got a pretty cool system in some countries where there are tons of parties who can join together during different elections, depending on how they'd like it to go.

A one-party system, however, is dangerous. From there, an autocracy or dictatorship isn't a far leap. Two parties are better than one, but I don't believe it's enough.

I agree that we need a multi-party system, but not necessarily five parties--I don't know how many would work best, but they've got a pretty cool system in some countries where there are tons of parties who can join together during different elections, depending on how they'd like it to go.

A one-party system, however, is dangerous. From there, an autocracy or dictatorship isn't a far leap. Two parties are better than one, but I don't believe it's enough.

I think it's a violation of our rights for the government to institute a military draft. However, I don't necessarily oppose a mandatory community service program, which could include military service but also work at nursing homes, hospitals, pro-bono legal assistance, certain non-profit organizations, etc.

I think it's a violation of our rights for the government to institute a military draft. However, I don't necessarily oppose a mandatory community service program, which could include military service but also work at nursing homes, hospitals, pro-bono legal assistance, certain non-profit organizations, etc.

houseofhale says:

"I don't have a problem with intelligent design being discussed in public schools but it has no business being any part of a school's science curriculum. Discussion of intelligent design belongs in a philosophy or religion course. Ideally, all high schools would offer a mandatory Comparison of World Religions course."

houseofhale, you took the words right out of my... fingers.

I don't think we should ban intelligent design or any other ideas from public schools--that's promoting ignorance. But hasn't anyone heard of SCIENCE? Intelligent design is just not true. If a school wants to teach it, fine, but it's NOT okay to lie to kids and promote ignorance by teaching it as science or even as fact.

houseofhale says:

"I don't have a problem with intelligent design being discussed in public schools but it has no business being any part of a school's science curriculum. Discussion of intelligent design belongs in a philosophy or religion course. Ideally, all high schools would offer a mandatory Comparison of World Religions course."

houseofhale, you took the words right out of my... fingers.

I don't think we should ban intelligent design or any other ideas from public schools--that's promoting ignorance. But hasn't anyone heard of SCIENCE? Intelligent design is just not true. If a school wants to teach it, fine, but it's NOT okay to lie to kids and promote ignorance by teaching it as science or even as fact.

My politically incorrect view is: As long as we're intervening in countries like Afghanistan (Cold War), Iraq, potentially Iran (it's clear the government wants to go there), and elsewhere, why not intervene in Darfur? At least they actually need it.

My politically correct view: As one of the most--if not the most--powerful nations in the world, we have the resources and the obligation to intervene on behalf of the victims of this genocide (and all others). We had information about Hitler's annihilation of the Jews and didn't act on it--look what happened there! We have far more extensive, and far more concrete information about the genocide in Darfur... so why won't we do anything?

They don't have resources we need, that's why. (Yes, that's the cynical view.)

If America wants to set an example for the world--peace, love, whatever--we have to intervene. More than that--by turning a blind eye to the genocide, we are no better than the killers.

My politically incorrect view is: As long as we're intervening in countries like Afghanistan (Cold War), Iraq, potentially Iran (it's clear the government wants to go there), and elsewhere, why not intervene in Darfur? At least they actually need it.

My politically correct view: As one of the most--if not the most--powerful nations in the world, we have the resources and the obligation to intervene on behalf of the victims of this genocide (and all others). We had information about Hitler's annihilation of the Jews and didn't act on it--look what happened there! We have far more extensive, and far more concrete information about the genocide in Darfur... so why won't we do anything?

They don't have resources we need, that's why. (Yes, that's the cynical view.)

If America wants to set an example for the world--peace, love, whatever--we have to intervene. More than that--by turning a blind eye to the genocide, we are no better than the killers.

Western powers chopped up Africa to fit their own motives... look how well that worked out.

Western powers chopped up Africa to fit their own motives... look how well that worked out.

We can't start preaching to other countries about THEIR emissions until we make a cooperative effort ourselves--i.e., ratifying the protocol. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. In response to a couple other comments: Bold Strike says:

"Even if one was to believe that humans are the cause of global warming (rather than a fluctuating sun), binding ourselves to another pointless 'resolution' won't do any good. Canada actually increased its emissions since it signed by 24%. This is just a poor attempt at world legislation that no one follows."

Bold Strike, you're right that there are natural fluctuations in natural temperature, but not like this. The scientific community has reached a relative consensus that global warming is a real scientific phenomenon not just due to natural fluctuations (or cow flatulence). Also, you said that no one follows this legislation, and others said that the U.N. is ineffective. I apologize for the bluntness of the statement, but anyone who says that is being utterly hypocritical. Hasn't it ever crossed your minds that the U.N. can only function if member countries allow it to? Its ineffectiveness is due to countries LIKE THE US NOT FOLLOWING U.N. PROTOCOLS AND STANDARDS.

We can't start preaching to other countries about THEIR emissions until we make a cooperative effort ourselves--i.e., ratifying the protocol. Sure, it's not perfect, but it's better than nothing. In response to a couple other comments: Bold Strike says:

"Even if one was to believe that humans are the cause of global warming (rather than a fluctuating sun), binding ourselves to another pointless 'resolution' won't do any good. Canada actually increased its emissions since it signed by 24%. This is just a poor attempt at world legislation that no one follows."

Bold Strike, you're right that there are natural fluctuations in natural temperature, but not like this. The scientific community has reached a relative consensus that global warming is a real scientific phenomenon not just due to natural fluctuations (or cow flatulence). Also, you said that no one follows this legislation, and others said that the U.N. is ineffective. I apologize for the bluntness of the statement, but anyone who says that is being utterly hypocritical. Hasn't it ever crossed your minds that the U.N. can only function if member countries allow it to? Its ineffectiveness is due to countries LIKE THE US NOT FOLLOWING U.N. PROTOCOLS AND STANDARDS.

First of all, NCLB calls for mathmatically impossible results. Second, the testing used for NCLB isn't fair, because special ed students and other kids with learning disabilities obviously won't perform as well. Third, punishing the schools is NOT going to help. Any responses to this are welcome. Just try to stay civil.

First of all, NCLB calls for mathmatically impossible results. Second, the testing used for NCLB isn't fair, because special ed students and other kids with learning disabilities obviously won't perform as well. Third, punishing the schools is NOT going to help. Any responses to this are welcome. Just try to stay civil.