Jump to content
Welcome to InsanelyMac Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About wildcat69410

  • Rank
    InsanelyMac Sage
  • Birthday 10/03/1982

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  1. Abortion in the US

    Have you heard of self-defense? Justifiable homicide? That kind of a logical failsafe is already built into our legal system. Assuming that the circumstances he's talking about refer specifically to rape victims and life-threatening delivery, then there's no hole in his reasoning.
  2. Abortion in the US

    Okay, what about those who require an iron lung to live? What about those who experience kidney failure, and have to be hooked up to machines to filter their blood? On a biological level, they cannot live on their own. They physically cannot breathe, and they chemically cannot filter their blood. Are these people "inhuman" and do they lose their rights as well?
  3. Global Warming

    We can't exactly place all of our faith in computer modeling. Dr. Vincent Gray, a research scientist and a 2001 reviewer with the IPCC, has noted, "The effects of aerosols, and their uncertainties, are such as to nullify completely the reliability of any of the climate models." There are so many unknown variables that simply cannot be effectively programmed into a computer model. To rely upon such a model as your primary means of proof is fairly ridiculous. Who do you think I'm quoting? I'm giving you the names of many scientists who are actively opposing and questioning the "evidence" surrounding AGW. As I've said before, the "so-called" consensus on "Global Warming" is false. Even the "scientific majority" is becoming thinner. To simply listen to the prevailing majority in this case is a big mistake. Sure they were. Those scientists, like many of those today, took what little temperature information they had and used it to predict the coming of the next ice age! Yet all we're talking about is barely a degree or two at most. It's the same situation today. Scientists are taking "evidence" and exaggerating its effects to "conclude" that the earth is about to hit that "tipping point" and species worldwide will become extinct. Global Cooling and Global Dimming are two radically different theories on the sheer fact that they have radically different conclusions. No offense, but both analogies are very incorrect. I'll ignore the first, and instead examine the second. It completely ignores the information I've presented. A better analogy might be more like this: We're driving along a road in a car that has a broken speedometer. We really have little that suggests how fast we're going. While driving, we pass one of those automated radar stations on the road that tell us our speed and the posted speed limit. To our relief, we're driving well within the posted speed limit, and there's nothing to suggest that we've been driving any differently. Here's the catch. We're driving on a flat road, with no cliff side or curve in sight. Yet you're telling me that even though there's no evidence to suggest that I'm driving too fast, and that although there's no evidence to suggest that we're about to hit a deadly curve, that I should slow down anyway. That's my problem with all of this. There really isn't a lot of proof suggesting anything like what Al Gore is preaching to his congregation of environmentalists. The whole "better safe than sorry" really loses its effect when there's nothing suggesting that we'll be sorry. Scaremongering has no place in any scientific discussion. If you can't get your point across with reasonable facts or statistics, you shouldn't rely on the inherent fear of a brainwashed population to do it for you. Still, there's nothing to suggest that we're getting any closer to that "tipping point". There's no evidence that illustrates how anything out of the ordinary or unprecedented is happening with our climate. In reality, we're no closer to the "tipping point" than we were before the industrial revolution, or any time period before that. As for the Clathrate Gun, we're far away from that becoming even a recognizable possibility. According to the Wikipedia article that you linked to, the Methane Extinction Event would require at least a rise in sea level temperatures of at least 5 degrees celsius. If we continue along our current rate of "heating", and that's still assuming that the earth wouldn't cool at all during the period (which it inevitably would), then we're talking well over 500 years before such a gain could happen. As I've stated before, the average temperature variability over a century is 0.8C. That's a change in temperature up or down. We have no evidence that tells us that we're surpassing that average, or that the rate is going to continue to climb for centuries to come. Okay, how many of them have been clearly caused by some form of "Global Warming"? Last I checked, a meteor striking the earth and causing a mass extinction had little to do with the temperature on the earth itself. You can worry all you want, but in the end there's no statistic that suggest we're heading down that road to mass extinction. Really? It seems to me that Mars has actually been experiencing an increase in its temperatures over the past half-century or so. I know that Mars was once a hospitable planet, but I was talking about the more recent past when I made that statement. My point was, and is, that temperatures can rise on a planet for entirely different reasons. Obviously, there are no "man-made" causes on Mars that's making those temperatures rise. In effect, it's a natural occurrence. I see no reason to believe that what's happening on Earth is any different. Using Venus and Mars as planets that have "gone off the road" is a little misleading. While Mars once could have sustained life, Venus never could, especially considering its proximity to the sun. Plus, we don't fully understand what happened to either planet that pushed it into the current inhospitable state. To conclude that the Earth could easily follow in their footsteps is a little rash. As I said above, there's no evidence to suggest that the car is speeding up. Furthermore, it matters hugely whether or not humans are causing "Global Warming". Because, if we're not causing it, then what can we do to stop it? If it's not CO2 that's increasing temperatures, then why are we talking about capping its emissions? Honestly, if "Global Warming" is a natural phenomenon that is going to continue to rise, there's really nothing we can do. However, I see no evidence to suggest that this phenomenon will continue, or that it's doing something irregular or out of the ordinary. Not entirely. The IPCC was composed of a grand total of... (drumroll please) 52 scientists. Not hundreds of the world's brightest, not thousands of geniuses hailing from every corner of the globe. 52 freaking scientists. I've already given you 400 scientists who responded in a Senatorial investigation on "Global Warming". Plus, I haven't even begun to mention the likes of the Oregon Petition. Honestly, when over 19,000 scientists get together to oppose something, you can throw terms like "scientific consensus" or "scientific majority" straight out the window. Plus, as the wikipedia article states, there are other similar petitions as well, all signed by scientists who oppose the theory of AGW. Let's face it, there's no consensus, and there's certainly no identifiable majority that believe in AGW. At least, there's not a large enough one to justify the expenditure of resources towards "stopping" or "slowing down" "Global Warming". I understand what you're saying, but there's still no evidence to support it. You're asking me to slow down because "we don't know what's around the next curve", but there's nothing to suggest that a curve is even in sight. Arguably, there is more evidence to suggest that a meteor could fall out of the sky and hit the car we're all driving in than a curve is coming up in the roadway. Yet you see nobody begging me to start driving in an avoidance pattern to ensure that we won't be hit. Quite simply, we can't responsibly allocate resources to an issue that (and no evidence suggests that it will) "might" kill us all. There are countless of other possibilities of what the earth could face within the next millenia. There's a "super-volcano" under Yellowstone that, if it erupts, could cause another mass extinction. Yet I hear nobody putting forth radical plans of preventing its eruption, or perhaps installing some kind of plan for what to do if it actually occurs. Again, I see no reason to act any differently with "Global Warming". Actually, if the meteor is large enough, the impact could potentially cause worldwide extinction. Of course, it's all dependent on the atmospheric impact that it has. Ironically, there's more evidence to suggest that the impact of a large meteor would have a greater influence on global temperatures than the emission of "greenhouse gases". Arguably, there's even more evidence to suggest that a meteor strike is far more eminent than the continuation of "Global Warming". Either way, there's still no reason to build meteor shelters, and there's still no reason to dump resources into preventing the rise of "Global Warming".
  4. Global Warming

    That's just the kind of cataclysmic scaremongering I'm talking about. Whenever anyone brings up another issue, or claims that "Global Warming" isn't as eminent as they believe, they instantly switch into a "nobody survives" scenario. Screw Darfur, screw the AIDS epidemic, forget poverty, forget all of that. Who cares about that, because in several hundred years, the world may no longer support life! Brilliant! Okay, so deserts are growing, but are they growing at an out of control rate? Is there anything to suggest that the past 100 years has seen greater temperature variance than centuries before? Not really. French Climatologist Dr. Marcel Leroux, former professor at Université Jean Moulin and director of the Laboratory of Climatology, Risks, and Environment in Lyon states, "Day after day, the same mantra - that ‘the Earth is warming up’ - is churned out in all its forms. As ‘the ice melts’ and ‘sea level rises,’ the Apocalypse looms ever nearer! Without realizing it, or perhaps without wishing to, the average citizen in bamboozled, lobotomized, lulled into mindless ac­ceptance. ... Non-believers in the greenhouse scenario are in the position of those long ago who doubted the existence of God ... fortunately for them, the Inquisition is no longer with us!" There is nothing that points to out of control climate change. As I've stated previously, the change in temperature over the past century falls along the standard average of years past! For your "nightmare scenario", there's no real evidence to suggest that the Earth is suddenly going to lose its capacity to sustain life. Sure, we're growing towards that 8 billion person limit, but there's not an ounce of proof that some cataclysmic "light switch" is going to be flipped, reducing the Earth's capacity to 4 billion instantly. Honestly, there are about a dozen things that are more likely to cause worldwide chaos than Global Warming. Epidemics, rogue Nuclear Weapons, terrorism, anything! Yet we're supposed to dump billions of dollars of resources into stopping "Global Warming"? Even worse, the evidence out there suggests that, if anything, this is a natural occurrence that man cannot control! Interesting that you point out Mars and Venus as examples of "Global Warming". Especially seeing as there's no intelligent life attributing to or preventing the phenomenon to occur. In fact, as both planets are experiencing rising temperatures in similar variations as Earth, it can be reasonably concluded that "Global Warming" may have to do with an attribute that all planets share. Their relationship to the sun. Perhaps rising temperatures are due to some galactic factor that we haven't yet taken into account. Regardless, it's clear that the rising temperatures on Venus and Mars have little to do with man-made CO2 . Exactly! Earth's temperature has fluctuated many times in the past, naturally! Regardless of the CO2 man emits, it's going to fluctuate. In fact the Earth has experienced temperatures much higher than this multiple times throughout History! However, the past several million years illustrates a decrease in the variability of the temperatures (lower highs and higher lows). Even with those variations as a precedent, there's no evidence to suggest that temperatures are rising in an unnatural fashion. Furthermore, there's no evidence to suggest that man-made factors are causing this increase. The mere fact that it has occurred before, without the help of man, makes me think that it's simply a natural fluctuation, nothing more, nothing less. Again, the same "cataclysmic risk" argument. I'm sorry, but even the IPCC doesn't suggest that the Earth is suddenly going to lose capacity for life. It's not as if I'm taking an enormous risk by being a skeptic. Honestly, it appears as if there's an equal likelihood of the Earth being struck by some enormous meteor in the next 500 years as there is for the Earth to reach abnormal temperatures that erase life as we know it. Yet, I don't see anyone running around petitioning NASA to start working on "Meteor Defense Shields", and I don't see musicians holding "save the earth from the meteor" concerts. It's kind of ridiculous that, out of all the problems that have the potential of harming humans, we're focusing so much on something so minor and unproven. In reality, there are far more scientists than those I'm quoting. I'm looking at the U.S. Senate's report right now, and I'm just pulling scientists and their responses every time someone pulls an argument based on conjecture. Those listed as being present, or contributing to the Senate's report number well over 400. Coincidentally, many of those very scientists were involved with the IPCC's study and actually received a part of Al Gore's Nobel Prize. However, they were so disgusted with the obvious lack of scientific inquiry present during the entire study that they felt compelled to speak out. I don't really believe that there are only a few dissenters. In fact, I don't really believe that 400 truly represent the number of skeptics in the scientific community on the issue of "Global Warming". Czech-born U.S. climatologist Dr. George Kukla, a research scientist with the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University, said it best when he stated, "The only thing to worry about is the damage that can be done by worrying. Why are some scientists worried? Perhaps because they feel that to stop worrying may mean to stop being paid." I hate to be so cynical, but what makes anyone think that scientists are immune to the financial restrictions that plague working people worldwide? They're humans too, and are susceptible to the very same weaknesses that the rest of us experience. Plus, the majority of the scientists that are stepping forward aren't exactly guys like the "Intelligent Design Guru" Behe. They're widely respected experts in their field. They've all performed enormous research, and have made fantastic attributions to their respective fields. It's not like we're dealing with a couple of idiots with a fake degree, we're talking about guys who literally made the field in which they're in. At times like these, I think it's important to remember that the majority of the scientific opinion isn't always right. Men like Galileo and Einstein were criticized by the "Scientific Majority" of the time for their conclusions. Yet today, these men are heralded as the greatest minds of their time. Should we suddenly throw away all scientific majority for the sake of a few dissenters? Of course not. But simply disregarding their finds because the "majority" disagrees isn't the smart thing to do.
  5. Global Warming

    That video represents a lot of the "cataclysmic hype" I've just talked about. His entire argument focuses on how it's better to be "safe than sorry", by presenting a list of clear cut conclusions if "Global Warming" is allowed to continue. On that list is hurricanes, flooding, all kinds of garbage. It's kind of funny that he mentions hurricanes, as after Hurricane Katrina, the United States has experienced fairly weak Hurricane seasons. If the world were rapidly heating, as "Global Warming" would tell us, then why aren't the Hurricane seasons increasing in intensity? As for flooding, Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, "I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting – a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number – entirely without merit." He went on to say, in response to the growing number of activists who are pushing for CO2 regulations, "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached." The video utilizes the weight of two scientific institutions to "prove" just how serious "Global Warming" is. He then proceeds to declare the scientists opposing it "merely a handful". What he carefully ignores is that this "handful", if 400 people and counting could be considered as such, hails from some of the world's most distinguished scientific institutes including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; the Belgian Weather Institute; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London. Plus, I'm always prone to argue for an individual's reputation far over the reputation of a group of people. Especially considering the reputations already garnered by the scientists who stepped forward in the Senate report. As for the private companies who are setting their own regulations, it doesn't prove anything. He tries to use it to "move the line upward" and show how real "Global Warming" actually is. However, it's far more likely that these companies are taking advantage of how "environmentally sensitive" the consumer base has become. Honestly, how many of us have seen the commercials on TV proclaiming a company's involvement in become a better contributor to the environment? It's not that they necessarily believe in its effects, but its that they recognize a national movement when they see one. His whole "risk management" square is rather interesting, if not a little misleading. No one really knows the large consequences of "Global Warming", so he utilizes the scariest of the conjectures to make his point. Is flooding possible, sure. Will sea levels suddenly rise and engulf the eastern seaboard? Unlikely. Will Hurricanes gain in number and intensity? As we've already seen, unlikely. Plus it's important to realize that in all likelihood, action will have no consequence on the natural shift in temperature at all! If it's something that's entirely unaffected by man-made efforts, then why should we spend billions in an effort to change the conclusion of a scenario that is unavoidable. If the world is heating rapidly (which it really isn't), then there's really nothing we can do about it. Sure, we can reduce our emissions so we can have a clear conscious when it does happen, but that won't solve the problem. Personally, is whole "risk management" sequence reminds me a lot of Pascal's wager. Similar mechanics, similar logic, entirely different subjects. Yet, you don't exactly see a lot of God fearing Christians on this board, do you? I just find it ironic that so many people are rushing to follow one and disregard the other. In closing, that video doesn't really present a lot against my argument. In a scientific sense, it does nothing to prove or disprove the points I presented in my previous post. His entire argument is focused on "what if?" scenarios, which are exaggerated and misconstrued. Furthermore, his consequences for action in the event that "Global Warming" doesn't exist are pitifully small. He completely disregards the events that will be ignored if "Global Warming" is moved to the world's top priority. Like he illustrates at the end of the video, throwing all those events to the side only makes sense if "Global Warming" is an eminent threat. If it isn't, how many years will we waste trying to solve a non-existent problem? How many lives will be lost through genocides, conflicts, diseases, etc. before the world will drop its obsession with "Global Warming" and solve the real issues? Simply put, we can't afford to let "Global Warming" become a scapegoat through which all other worldly issues can be avoided and thrown aside. We simply can't.
  6. Global Warming

    From my perspective, "Global Warming" appears to be far more of a natural phenomenon of shifting temperatures than a cataclysmic climate shift caused by human beings. Historically speaking, climate change of this magnitude is far from unprecedented. According to Dr. Nathan Paldor, a Professor of Dynamical Meteorology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (increases and decreases) of magnitude similar to that reported by the IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial Revolution (about 0.8C or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!" Furthermore, there is virtually no cause and effect relationship between "greenhouse gases" and temperature. According to Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences, and an author of 300 studies and 9 books, stated, "Even if the concentration of greenhouse gases double, man would not perceive the temperature impact.". These two distinguished scientists aren't alone in voicing their opposing viewpoints on global warming. They are merely 2 of over 400 who participated in the U.S. Senate Report on Global Warming. All of those involved were experts of their related field, like climatology, geology, biology, glaciology, biogeography, meteorology, oceanography, economics, chemistry, mathematics, environmental sciences, engineering, physics and paleoclimatology. It seems to me that the majority of the hype surrounding "Global Warming" comes from media figures who have little knowledge of what they're saying. Furthermore, even the scientific community itself is rather hostile to those opposing the view that "Global Warming" is an eminent problem. Many scientists who express their opinion are shunned, or even worse (at least from a financial perspective) lose grants that they are reliant upon to complete groundbreaking research. From a very cynical point of view, it seems that many scientists are willing to "blow the horn" of "Global Warming" so to speak in order to obtain grant money for their own purposes. True or not, there's something very wrong when a community so proud of their open-minded ability to reason to find the truth turns so hostile towards that very same ideal. Ironically, this very same media-frenzied hype has occurred before. For the older readers of this forum, perhaps you will recall the June 24, 1974 Time Magazine cover proclaiming onset of the next ice age. Utilizing similar "environmental data", scientists and media outlets alike criticized poor environmental practices by linking them to a sudden drop in worldwide temperatures that, unless immediate action was taken, would inevitably render the earth incapable of providing the resources necessary to sustain the current human population. Man, what a joke! Now, of course hindsight is always 20/20, but can anyone else see how this very same series of events is being played out today? The only thing that's changed is that the world is now heating instead of cooling. Sure, we can make enormous changes to lower the emission of "greenhouse gases". We can take away all cars, establish strict regulations, treat operating an internal combustion engine like a criminal offense. However, even with those changes in place, the Earth's temperature isn't going to suddenly cool down. In fact, equal doses of science and probability tells us that the next 15, 20, 50, or even 100 years could bring hotter temperatures, cooler temperatures, and anything in-between. Quite simply, I don't understand the logic of throwing enormous resources towards solving a crisis that doesn't exist. Especially considering the fact that there are far more important issues facing the World today. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if, in 30 or so years, the world looks back on "Global Warming" for what it really is: a natural phenomenon. Nothing more, nothing less.
  7. Learn the truth about 9/11!

    Out of curiosity OryHara, what would constitute undeniable proof for you? Are we talking video, witnesses, metal fragments, a time machine? I mean, people keep throwing facts, theories, testimonies and more at you that you continue to deny...
  8. Should we bomb North Korea?

    As if on cue, major news outlets are reporting that North Korea test fired missiles into the sea of Japan today. Reportedly, they were a response to a recent launching of a new South Korean destroyer capable of destroying aircraft and missiles with greater ease. Regardless of the reason, that kind of blatant hostility should not be tolerated, period. If France, upset over the launching of a new aircraft carrier, launched a test missile into the North Atlantic as a response, I have no doubt that the United States would simply not tolerate it. In reality, nobody should. Why then, do we stand by, and allow North Korea to engage in such obviously aggressive acts upon our allies?
  9. Should we bomb North Korea?

    Exactly, and not only that, the United States was incredibly smart when negotiating Japan's surrender. In obeying the age old Machiavellian view, the United States had two real options when dealing with Japan. They could've utilized absolutely crippling surrender terms, effectively destroying what was then known as Japan, or they could've been incredibly nice with the treaty terms (which they did), and established a trusted trading partner and political ally. At that point in time, everybody realized the mistake after dealing with Germany (and not crippling them or placating them), and just went with one extreme (the only smart thing to do). Oh, and North Korea has been way aggressive with Japan. As time goes on, that aggressiveness has increased almost to a point where they're testing the waters to see when the International Community will actually respond. Seriously now, you don't launch a missile over a country and still not call it an act of aggression. I can guarantee you if they had the balls to pull that on us, we would have bombed their ass to the ground before that missile made it over the US and into the Atlantic on the other side. Nobody should have to deal with that kind of threat, especially an ally like Japan.
  10. Should we bomb North Korea?

    Specifically, I was referring to the agreement signed between North Korea and the United States (under Clinton) in 1994, where North Korea agreed to freeze and eventually dismantle its Nuclear Weapons program in exchange for international aid (United States led) towards constructing two power-producing nuclear reactors. American Taxpayers have paid a total of 800 million dollars to date towards aid that was re-directed by North Korea. Instead of freezing their nuclear weapons program, they in fact enhanced it, and all because they broke an agreement with the United States that Clinton didn't have the backbone to do anything about. As for the causes of actual military action against a nation, I believe that North Korea's adamant continuation of nuclear missile testing is certainly an act of aggression. Furthermore, their blatant missile launch (1998) over Japan into the Pacific Ocean, showing that they can strike any part of Japan's Territory, is certainly an act of aggression, and to a United States ally no less. Seriously now, acts of aggression have been committed multiple times. Although we shouldn't just send in 150,000 men to invade North Korea, waiting until a weapon is launched with malicious intent at the United States or one of their allies is sort of stupid. I've got to question you on this. Because nobody, and I mean nobody, could sanely attempt to compare the negative effects of World War II and the Iraq War. Seriously now, that's just ludicrous. Plus, the WMD's were a justification, if they had actually existed. I still (and call me ignorant if you want), am adamant in the belief that it was simply incorrect intelligence that led to this war. To believe otherwise is to blatantly state that three of the world's superpowers corroborated and falsified intelligence for the war in Iraq. I'm sorry, but that just didn't happen. It's also very easy to appease real threats. That's exactly what Neville Chamberlain did... Agreed, preventative wars are to be avoided, but so should waiting for inevitable casualties to arise. We have to find a better balance of things. In an era of Nuclear Weapons, that can singlehandedly wipe out millions of people, reactionary foreign policy is no longer a sure bet. In an earlier period of time, where more obvious warning signs were apparent, and where no military force could singlehandedly destroy a city in a moment's time, then reactionary foreign policy was a success. Again, I'm not supporting all out war against a nation for "preventative measures", but I don't see why a very small preventative strike force wouldn't be beneficial. Our founding fathers wanted isolationism. In today's post World War II world, we are de-isolated. With all of the modern technology around us, communicating with others across the world is easier and easier. We cannot simply crawl into a hole and disappear, refusing to enter in any foreign-policy measures.
  11. Religion in the modern world...

    So then I ask you, what has inspired the majority of those great men and women to make those discoveries? Their belief in God, and their desire to honor him. Seriously, some of the greatest scientists to have ever lived were significantly inspired by Christianity.
  12. Should we bomb North Korea?

    100% different cases here. My only point was that waiting for North Korea to gain the appropriate weapons and military personnel to become a world threat was fairly ludicrous. My allusion to Germany wasn't focused upon their annexation of Hungary, but instead upon their continued violations of the Treaty of Versailles. Just as Germany slowly broke individual regulations of the treaty over time (rebuilding their military, moving military personnel into the rhineland, etc), North Korea is continually breaking both UN Regulations and regulations with the United States. At what point do we seriously do something about it. I'm not trying to justify all out war, but I am trying to justify limited military enforcement. Waiting until a missile is launched, or troops movements is too late. Being reactionary, while politically safe, isn't always the best thing to do. North Korea, in my humble opinion, is a situation where decisive action could prevent a serious conflict.
  13. Should we bomb North Korea?

    So then, just to clarify, a nation or a cause has to be an eminent danger to the entire world before it could justify military action to prevent it? The world's tried that tactic before, during the appeasement of the 30's. Look where that got us...
  14. Bunch of illegals

    When they do it by bypassing the legal regulatory measures, then it becomes illegal. I'm sure nobody here considers immigration itself a crime, or an overtly negative impact upon our nation. It's doing it illegally, taking advantage of whatever welfare benefits they can get, and creating a strain upon the economy that is the problem.
  15. Bunch of illegals

    Sure it's equitable, the American Collegiate system is basically the same, and yet achieves great success. If the public schooling system could be institutionalized in a similar fashion, the public schooling system could achieve similar success. Plus, if it were implemented on a large scale, private schools that underperformed would naturally get less students, and less money as a result. Eventually, unless changes were made, that school would then be forced to close down out of economic necessity. When tested in pilot programs in both New York and Minneapolis (I think), students experienced moderate test gains.