The Debate Hall Social Thread

[Crimson King]

Social Thread Ruleset
(Breaking any of the following rules can result in an infraction and/or closing of this room)​

*This room is for intelligent discussion only. No spam. There will be no posts asking how someone's day was or the like.

*Examples of appropriate topics:

-Questions/discussions about a certain theory you may or may not disagree with in Physics
-How thorough has science been in mapping the Big Bang? Evolution?
-Natural science vs social science

That is not to say the only appropriate topics are scientific. As long as you keep within the rest of the rules, you could also, for example, discuss a book you just read, or any other topic that can spark intellignet discussion.


*Examples of inappropriate posts:

-"Sup bro?"
-"So how was your day?"
-"SPAM! "
-"This topic is amazing."
-"That post above me was so wrong, I won't even respond. *leaves*"
-"I've been kinda inactive due to finals this week."​

*No bickering about people not in the DH, including PGers

*No double posts or one-liners just to be funny.

*The SWF global rules still apply here.

*What you SHOULD use this room for:

-Talking about appropriate topics such as the ones listed above that DO NOT merit a debate thread
-Discussing ideas for events or ideas for new debate topics
-Asking INTELLIGENT questions about the debate threads. DO NOT ask something that could be answered by using the search function. Questions like these are mostly intended to maintain the quality of the actual debate thread by not having to ask your question there. Example:

For example, if a newly accepted DH member wanted to jump into the Intellectual Property thread but didn't want to have to read through all 240+ posts, they could go into the social thread and ask if their idea had been brought up already. If their idea had already been mentioned, they wouldn't waste time writing a huge essay about it as well as someone else's time who has to tell them their point had already been brought up and countered. If their idea hadn't been brought up yet, they could elaborate on it in the actual thread.

*What you SHOULD NOT use this room for:

-Inappropriate posts such as the ones mentioned above.
-Asking whether a thread exists (use the search function)
-Discussing topics that are worthy of a debate thread. If you want to discuss a topic worthy of a debate thread, just make a regular thread.
-Breaking any of the rules mentioned above.​

Credit for rules go to Zero Beat and KrazyGlue

 

[Reaver197]

Is it cool to bring up interesting articles or videos that you find that could spark a discussion but otherwise doesn't have a thread for it or warrant one?

 

[CRASHiC]

Let's say I asked to find the flaw in an argument, like, something about a particular essay, editorial, or news caster program didn't sit right with me, could I post in here to ask for members to help me check its logic and the information presented? Like seeing someone argue scientific studies, and asking members like Goldshadow if these facts presented are true and respected in the Scientific community?

 

[Crimson King]

Yes and yes.

 

[CRASHiC]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft8LfE7AI2w

The first mistake I know, the deaths of natural disasters being down in the 1920s, because how can you compare today's medical field to that of the 1920s, even more our protection, prediction, and prevention against such disasters.
What doesn't sit right with me is the claim that some of the information that Goldshadow had presented earlier was 'made up,' namely the chart on average global temperatures.
Then there is the claim that scientist support this because it is in their best interest. Do scientist actually get payed based off finding radical results? Do scientist take any oath upon entering their field, similar to Doctors and Lawyers? Or can we just simply assume that Scientist should be better respected than to stoop so low?
Because my knowledge on this limited, and they give no sources, I have trouble finding any refutes to their claims.

 

[Aesir]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ft8LfE7AI2w

The first mistake I know, the deaths of natural disasters being down in the 1920s, because how can you compare today's medical field to that of the 1920s, even more our protection, prediction, and prevention against such disasters.
What doesn't sit right with me is the claim that some of the information that Goldshadow had presented earlier was 'made up,' namely the chart on average global temperatures.
Then there is the claim that scientist support this because it is in their best interest. Do scientist actually get payed based off finding radical results? Do scientist take any oath upon entering their field, similar to Doctors and Lawyers? Or can we just simply assume that Scientist should be better respected than to stoop so low?
Because my knowledge on this limited, and they give no sources, I have trouble finding any refutes to their claims.

Considering their whole argument is a logical fallacy I think it's safe to say you can actually dismiss it.

But I'm pretty sure Scientists are not given an incentive to come up with radical theories. I also find it kind of funny that people think Climatologists would benefit from global warming. It's pretty much a bs argument.

Anyway quick google search brought this up. http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/skeptic-arguments.html

I just realized this is A Glenn Beck link, Glenn Beck is a comedian nothing more.

 

[blazedaces]

Scientists do not make a cent of the money they obtain from research. They only obtain a yearly salary (which is meager at best) and this salary isn't even dependent on their research. Once they obtain tenure they have even less of an incentive to push for any specific research or care about research money since they basically cannot be fired barring certain extreme conditions.

I really want to stress the point though in case people didn't completely hear it the first time: Scientists at Universities are not paid one cent of the money they obtain from research nor is their salary dependent on any research money they obtain.

Now, if there is a claim about 1 specific scientist making a false claim for more research money and if evidence was presented I could be persuaded that it does happen. But to blindly group together almost every major climatologist in the world and argue they are all "in on it" somehow is quite literally ridiculous.

Think about the fact that so many people, like the person in that video, are vying for scientists to provide evidence that global warming is indeed a hoax or that the claims are false or exaggerated. Wouldn't it be more reasonable if scientists were just in it "for the money" to obtain plenty of money "proving" global warming is not real? Don't you think the government's administration would love to see money spent on that?! And don't you think a scientist with such extremely provocative evidence could easily become famous speaking out against global warming, going to interviews, on the press everywhere?

I like how they don't get a scientist but a glorified weather man to say "I just know this is wrong".... because that's such a convincing argument...

-blazed

 

[KrazyGlue]

Scientists do not make a cent of the money they obtain from research. They only obtain a yearly salary (which is meager at best) and this salary isn't even dependent on their research. Once they obtain tenure they have even less of an incentive to push for any specific research or care about research money since they basically cannot be fired barring certain extreme conditions.

I really want to stress the point though in case people didn't completely hear it the first time: Scientists at Universities are not paid one cent of the money they obtain from research nor is their salary dependent on any research money they obtain.

Now, if there is a claim about 1 specific scientist making a false claim for more research money and if evidence was presented I could be persuaded that it does happen. But to blindly group together almost every major climatologist in the world and argue they are all "in on it" somehow is quite literally ridiculous.

Think about the fact that so many people, like the person in that video, are vying for scientists to provide evidence that global warming is indeed a hoax or that the claims are false or exaggerated. Wouldn't it be more reasonable if scientists were just in it "for the money" to obtain plenty of money "proving" global warming is not real? Don't you think the government's administration would love to see money spent on that?! And don't you think a scientist with such extremely provocative evidence could easily become famous speaking out against global warming, going to interviews, on the press everywhere?

I like how they don't get a scientist but a glorified weather man to say "I just know this is wrong".... because that's such a convincing argument...

-blazed

^I agree with all of this.

Plus, often the founders of major companies aren't necessarily experts in their field; often they're simply very successful businessmen. For example, the founder of the NBA wasn't a professional basketball player, it was founded by the owners of some ice hockey arenas. Similarly, John Coleman is not a professional meteorologist. He has been a weather anchor, but that has little requirement for knowledge of the field. In fact, he got his college degree in journalism.

 

[RDK]

The same principle applies to the biological sciences (or really any science, for that matter).

Which is why it always boggles my mind when someone tells me that the scientific community has it out for "x" religion, and that they have something to gain by propagating evolutionary theory, or remaining strictly secular when dealing with science. Surely the scientist that discovers something that abolishes either of those things would be the biggest thing in science...ever!

In fact, it would benefit scientists to try and go against the status quo, which is exactly why the peer review system works so well.

[/tangent]

 

[Deleted member]

Wait, so we can't post one liner posts / jokes / thoughts? What a waste of time. It's a social thread guys. Lighten up.

 

[Reaver197]

Because we must be that much deeper and introspective than everyone else on the board, lest we be exposed to be the farcical, pompous monkeys we are.

Wait a second...

Anyway, found this cool little article about a study released by Google on DRAM error rates. Woot. Thought some people might like to read it.

http://arstechnica.com/business/new...urns-assumptions-about-errors-upside-down.ars

 

[GoldShadow]

For some reason it won't let me make this whole response as one post so I've split it up into two:

Scientists do not make a cent of the money they obtain from research. They only obtain a yearly salary (which is meager at best) and this salary isn't even dependent on their research. Once they obtain tenure they have even less of an incentive to push for any specific research or care about research money since they basically cannot be fired barring certain extreme conditions.

I really want to stress the point though in case people didn't completely hear it the first time: Scientists at Universities are not paid one cent of the money they obtain from research nor is their salary dependent on any research money they obtain.

Actually, this is not quite how it works. There is a lot of variability in how scientists are paid.
Scientists can work in a number of different areas. They can work in the private sector; in other words, industry, think tanks and non-profit organizations, and the like. They might work in academia, either at a university or with a government agency (NIH, CDC, NSF, etc). They could work for an intergovernmental agency like the UN/World Health Organization.

Scientists that work in industry are generally paid (by the company they work for) to do research of some sort; this research is generally given some sort of specific direction by the company. There's not much creativity. There may, in some cases, be a temptation or bias to publish certain results that will put the company in a favorable light. This certainly isn't the norm, but it should be noted.

Think tanks and certain non-profit organizations, by definition, have some agenda or set of goals (think tanks do work and conduct research to influence public policy). Think tanks are openly liberal, conservative, moderate, etc. Obviously, scientists who work for think tanks may sometimes be biased in their results, especially if they work for a particularly liberal or conservative organization.

Academia tends to be much less susceptible to bias than the aforementioned sectors. Scientists in academia may work for government organizations, like the NIH, CDC, NSF, etc. They are federal employees and are paid according to a government pay scale; they are paid to do research, but there is usually not much incentive to skew results. Scientists in academia may also work at universities (this is what people are most familiar with). How university researchers are paid varies quite a bit, but it follows a general scheme.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

Deleted because I am dumb.

 

[GoldShadow]

part 2 of previous post:
How much a researcher's salary comes from grant money is described by the words "soft" and "hard". Soft money refers to a salary made up mostly of grants. A university that pays a professor a salary and requires 70%, or 80%, or 100% to come from grants is said to be a soft position. A hard position is one where the university itself pays most of the salary, and only applies a small portion of grant money towards salary.

Clearly, scientists with a "softer" salary are under a lot more pressure to apply for and get grants than those with "harder" salaries. This means they are more likely to direct their research to avenues that will earn them grants. (see http://www.the-scientist.com/2008/5/1/32/1/ )

Then there's the matter of publications. Tenure track professors are often promoted based on the quality and quantity of publications, as well as the amount of grant money they bring in. Getting tenure is not exactly easy. The majority of professors probably do not get tenured during their careers. Getting tenured doesn't mean you can stop caring about research. You still might need to get grants to be paid, or to stay employed (tenure means you can be removed only after a due process... you can't be fired at will like a normal employee or non-tenured professor), or you still need to publish.

Despite possibility for bias here and there, I would argue that very few actually let it drastically affect their work (except scientists at obviously biased organizations, like conservative think tanks). Their credibility is at stake if they do that. Moreover, there's the whole process of "peer review", which means other scientists review the work before it is published in a reputable journal, and there is the issue of reproducibility; if another researcher in another lab gets different results, they will publish that. Other labs or researchers at other institutions will do the same, and generally a consensus is reached.

Then, there's this:

Now, if there is a claim about 1 specific scientist making a false claim for more research money and if evidence was presented I could be persuaded that it does happen. But to blindly group together almost every major climatologist in the world and argue they are all "in on it" somehow is quite literally ridiculous.

This is an excellent point. It's ridiculous to think that somehow, every scientist is in on it and it will somehow benefit them. It's right up there with "the government was responsible for 9/11" or something like that.



I'd just echo what everybody else said about everything else. Aesir's link is also very useful.


Also, one thing in that video that I found hilarious was John Coleman mentioning a petition signed by 19,000 scientists that global warming is false. I looked up that petition (it has 31,000 signers now). If you look up a lot of the names in that list, you'll find that many of them are not "scientists" at all. A lot of them are just people who have PhDs in social sciences and liberal arts like economics, or political science, or in literature and history and stuff. There are a bunch of doctors and veterinarians on that list, and scientists who are in fields entirely unrelated to global warming/the environment/climatology. There are a number of scientists who have no significant work under their belt; when you google their names, the first result that pops up is the website for the petition (never a good sign). There are a ton of people with no credentials at all, and there are a number of names that are clearly a joke (eg VA senator Robert C. Byrd, who is not a "scientist" in any sense of the word). And then there are a whole slew of other errors that make this thing a complete joke, covered well in this article:
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/new...g/2008/02/19000_scientists_doubt_warming.html

 

[blazedaces]

Looks like I was misinformed, although I sort of was referring only to scientists in academia. Still, I was wrong about that too.

Thank you very much for your informative post. It was very interesting information, and clearly presented some things even I already knew, specifically about the difficulties of obtaining tenure. I'm a senior at college and a few professors have strongly recommended I should try to stay for graduate school (decided to go get a job first). I've had quite a few conversations with them and other graduate students about this particular subject. I've been told it's incredibly stressful with constant pressure to publish/obtain grant money/achieve results very fast, etc.

It's kind of an obstructive point against my previous idea that professors have more autonomy than any scientist in industry.

And Reaver, interesting article. I sent it to a few colleagues.

-blazed

 

[GoldShadow]

It's kind of an obstructive point against my previous idea that professors have more autonomy than any scientist in industry.

Still, I'd say this is true. Scientists in academia on the whole tend to have a lot more freedom in what they decide to do than in industry (where there is very little room for creativity).

 

[Hydra.]

What do you guys think about this? For the school or for the guy?

http://news.aol.com/article/georgia.../georgia-schools-says-jonathan-escobar/707800

 

[Aesir]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nunTTyfCr8Y

Thoughts? I dunno why I'm so shocked a republican congressman would lie like that.

I still find it rather funny that democrats can't even get the public option passed, it's self funded and it's a majority issue.

 

[blazedaces]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nunTTyfCr8Y

Thoughts? I dunno why I'm so shocked a republican congressman would lie like that.

I still find it rather funny that democrats can't even get the public option passed, it's self funded and it's a majority issue.

I'm sorry, but to me, and many other Americans the fact that this can not be passed despite the majority view in the United States sends one clear message:

The government does not do what is in the best interest of the people, it does what is in the best interest of lobbyists who pay them money

-blazed

 

[Aesir]

I'm sorry, but to me, and many other Americans the fact that this can not be passed despite the majority view in the United States sends one clear message:

The government does not do what is in the best interest of the people, it does what is in the best interest of lobbyists who pay them money

-blazed

Tell that to the 1960's and 70's The last time the Democratic party actually campaigned on the "will of the people"

Also it's not being passed because Dems have no spine, congress's approval rating is abysmal right now. You know why? because they're not getting anything done.

By not doing anything their approval rating suffers, but they won't do anything because their approval rating is suffering.

American Politics is awesome.

 

[CRASHiC]

I boggles my mind how good the republican party is at political games and how horribly bad the democrats are.
I am tired of running damage control at everything the democrats do. Republicans feed their blind supporters with one liners that uninformed Democratic supporters have no rebuttal too, because instead Democrats simply laugh off these silly notions, like the claim that John Kerry was not a true war hero, the claim that he was a flip-flopper, the claim that Al Gore thought himself 'above' the people, and now, the birther movement, as well as the duo paradox criticism that Obama is both making government do TOO MUCH and that he isn't doing ANYTHING. What do Democrats do in reaction to these claims, like they always do?

Thus leaving there avid supporters left to attempt to clear up confusion, resulting in them losing elections. Only Clinton and Obama are the two democratic politicians who I see who can spin a yarn of bull **** and get away with it, less we forget Obama's church and Clinton's affair, "It wasn't sex, it was oral"
Then to top that off, the republicans have turned Liberal into a dirty word, so democrats are too scared to do anything in fear or getting branded as a Liberal, or the modern day version: Socialist.
In summary: I miss Ted Kennedy.

 

[thegreatkazoo]

I boggles my mind how good the republican party is at political games and how horribly bad the democrats are.
I am tired of running damage control at everything the democrats do. Republicans feed their blind supporters with one liners that uninformed Democratic supporters have no rebuttal too, because instead Democrats simply laugh off these silly notions, like the claim that John Kerry was not a true war hero, the claim that he was a flip-flopper, the claim that Al Gore thought himself 'above' the people, and now, the birther movement, as well as the duo paradox criticism that Obama is both making government do TOO MUCH and that he isn't doing ANYTHING. What do Democrats do in reaction to these claims, like they always do?

Thus leaving there avid supporters left to attempt to clear up confusion, resulting in them losing elections. Only Clinton and Obama are the two democratic politicians who I see who can spin a yarn of bull **** and get away with it, less we forget Obama's church and Clinton's affair, "It wasn't sex, it was oral"
Then to top that off, the republicans have turned Liberal into a dirty word, so democrats are too scared to do anything in fear or getting branded as a Liberal, or the modern day version: Socialist.
In summary: I miss Ted Kennedy.

Twenty times this (save the Ted Kennedy part).

This was the point that I was trying to make with making the Michael Jackson thread. Along with us just living off of our past success, there is also another problem that Democrats don't realize: Americans are dumb. Anyone with a normally functioning brain would realize that:

1. John Kerry bravely served our country in Vietnam.
2. That he was not a flip flopper.
3. That Gore is not above the people.
4. That Obama was born in the US, & that
5. Socialism is that last thing America is becoming (.21% of all businesses in the US are owned by the government. OH NOES! )

However, even with presented with facts, when people choose to ignore them & instead feed off of xenophobia, bigotry, and the like, you are left with either one of two options:

1. That the person is ignorant, or
2. The person is stupid

Gotta call it like you see it sometimes.

 

[blazedaces]

This is part of the reason I don't like to associate myself with the democratic party, even though if I take a test asking the pertinent questions I'll lean way left...

I heard a quote somewhere that a politician said who retired from politics after just a few short years: "If you have to explain yourself, you've already lost."

-blazed

 

[Mewter]

Just a quick physics/chemistry question.
What happens to a hydrogen ion's nucleus when stripped of its electron? Can it add itself to the nucleus of another atom, or does it just float freely until it draws another electron in or forms a bond?

Edit:
This is not to ask if it bonds regularly. Just wondering if the proton can "add" itself to another atom.

 

[blazedaces]

Just a quick physics/chemistry question.
What happens to a hydrogen ion's nucleus when stripped of its electron? Can it add itself to the nucleus of another atom, or does it just float freely until it draws another electron in or forms a bond?

Edit:
This is not to ask if it bonds regularly. Just wondering if the proton can "add" itself to another atom.

Electrons move rather freely (at least from the out-most bonds) between atoms. But the process of protons combining with others is called "fusion", something that both takes and creates enormous energy. The opposite of fusion is "fission" ... more often referred to as "nuclear fission" or when atoms are split apart (again releasing large amounts of energy). Fusion is more powerful than fission, and it is the process which powers our sun.

-blazed

 

[KrazyGlue]

I'd like to discuss the idea of a current events thread. It seemed to have been recieved well in the "increaing activity" thread, so I think we should move forward with it. As a starting current event, this would be a pretty good place to start. Now, we could implement the "current event of the week" idea into this thread, or we could make a seperate thread. Any thoughts?

 

[blazedaces]

I'd like to discuss the idea of a current events thread. It seemed to have been recieved well in the "increaing activity" thread, so I think we should move forward with it. As a starting current event, this would be a pretty good place to start. Now, we could implement the "current event of the week" idea into this thread, or we could make a seperate thread. Any thoughts?

I fully support this idea! I would say we start a new thread, keep this one for its own intents and purposes. I personally think the thread is doing it's job, increasing activity as we hoped for. A current event thread could do the same, but be more geared towards serious debate.

-blazed

 

[Mewter]

Thanks blazedaces. I totally forgot about fusion.

 

[Aesir]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/11/us/11calif.html

LOS ANGELES — In a rare public rebuke of state government and policies delivered by a sitting judge, the chief justice of the California Supreme Court scathingly criticized the state’s reliance on the referendum process, arguing that it has “rendered our state government dysfunctional.”

About time!

This is the worst idea Liberals ever came up with.

Thoughts?

 

[¯\_S.(ツ).L.I.D._/¯]

About the Current Events thread, I think we should make a separate thread.

It would be kind of confusing to have people talking on this thread about things that didn't relate to the current event of the week in the midst of the discussion, so to make it easier on everyone I think a separate thread would be best.

 

[KrazyGlue]

About the Current Events thread, I think we should make a separate thread.

It would be kind of confusing to have people talking on this thread about things that didn't relate to the current event of the week in the midst of the discussion, so to make it easier on everyone I think a separate thread would be best.

I contacted CK and I think that's what is going to happen (a separate thread).

 

[CRASHiC]

http://news.aol.com/article/pentago...ntagon-wants-bunker-buster-bomb-sooner/714556

TOO MUCH
even scarier than this bomb, is the poll:
How do you feel about the development of this bomb?
It comforts me 71%
It scares me 15%
I have no strong feelings 14%
Total Votes: 38,356

 

[Aesir]

http://news.aol.com/article/pentago...ntagon-wants-bunker-buster-bomb-sooner/714556

TOO MUCH
even scarier than this bomb, is the poll:
How do you feel about the development of this bomb?
It comforts me 71%
It scares me 15%
I have no strong feelings 14%
Total Votes: 38,356

Did you see the poll on what they thought of military spending? it was like 41% said there was to little.

AOL is full of Neo-cons I swear.

 

[CRASHiC]

I fail to see how this is necissary at all.
Afghan, Iraq, Pakistan: Bombs are useless here. We are not targeting the nation but small hidden forces hiding in the nation.
Iran: Bombing their nuclear facilities will cause WWIII, why? Because they places these facilities are cities Muslims consider holly. Bombing them would cause great out cry from all of Muslims. Its the equivalent of bombing Isreal.
What we should be spending money on is materials for our ground troops and recovery post war, not bombs that are made to step around the line between Nuclear and not Nuclear war missiles. The nature of this war, fighting an invisible enemy, post-traumatic stress as well as mental fatigue and suicide on the mission are at a much higher risk here than in a more traditional Stop the bad evil country war.

 

[Aesir]

I fail to see how this is necissary at all.
Afghan, Iraq, Pakistan: Bombs are useless here. We are not targeting the nation but small hidden forces hiding in the nation.
Iran: Bombing their nuclear facilities will cause WWIII, why? Because they places these facilities are cities Muslims consider holly. Bombing them would cause great out cry from all of Muslims. Its the equivalent of bombing Isreal.
What we should be spending money on is materials for our ground troops and recovery post war, not bombs that are made to step around the line between Nuclear and not Nuclear war missiles. The nature of this war, fighting an invisible enemy, post-traumatic stress as well as mental fatigue and suicide on the mission are at a much higher risk here than in a more traditional Stop the bad evil country war.

We should consider exit strategies now. The Surge was an utter failure, and Afghanistan is lost, Pakistan doesn't even want the US's help in dealing with terrorism.

As about Iran, continued peace talks is a must. But in all honesty, if you want anyone to be blamed for the Iranian situation then look no further then Brittan or the US.

Over throwing their democratically elected leader, supporting their oppressive leadership for 20 years, siding with Iraq. Ect.. ect...

Not to mention their Nuclear project was something We started with the Shah.

Plus over throwing Saddam likely accelerated their drive to get there, with Saddam in power we had a power gap in the middle east between Iran and Iraq. This is why Saddam had claimed he had weapons of mass destruction, to keep Iran at bay. Now that there's no longer an Iraq Iran has no competition anymore. If Iran does gain nuclear weapons I doubt they would even use it for fear of Israel, frankly all they're going to do is act like Russia and the Us during the Cold war.

 

[Crimson King]

FYI: I am closing and locking all threads that have posts older than 2 weeks today. I will begin moving threads to the Debate Hall Archives, and all those topics can be restarted.

 

[KrazyGlue]

http://news.aol.com/article/pentago...ntagon-wants-bunker-buster-bomb-sooner/714556

TOO MUCH
even scarier than this bomb, is the poll:
How do you feel about the development of this bomb?
It comforts me 71%
It scares me 15%
I have no strong feelings 14%
Total Votes: 38,356

Wow. Votes now at around 74,000 and the percentages are still about the same. In fact, the "comfort" percentage has risen to 72%.

We should consider exit strategies now. The Surge was an utter failure, and Afghanistan is lost, Pakistan doesn't even want the US's help in dealing with terrorism.

Agreed. We've done an awful job with this war. Time to get out.


We just keep spending more and more money...

 

[Aesir]

FYI: I am closing and locking all threads that have posts older than 2 weeks today. I will begin moving threads to the Debate Hall Archives, and all those topics can be restarted.

Awesome. I would love to restart my Electoral reform thread, my opinions on that subject are a lot more concise now.

Wow. Votes now at around 74,000 and the percentages are still about the same. In fact, the "comfort" percentage has risen to 72%.



Agreed. We've done an awful job with this war. Time to get out.


We just keep spending more and more money...

Yeah they're all Neo-cons. Our Defense budget is more expensive then all other parts of the federal budget combined.

This is not what LBG had in mind when he talked about the great society.

Instead of spending trillions making weapons, we should be spending that money on our infrastructure and public works. If we took the trillions wasted in the middle east and put it into domestic programs America would be stronger as whole. This is why we need another Eisenhower. The Military Industrial Complex has spiraled out of control.

 

[CRASHiC]

on the subject of spending money: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3504/3953384198_27dba7758a_o.gif

Some really sad numbers in here.

Without the Iraq War, we could have shifted the entire world to green energy, feed all kids for 5 years, or, the entire cost of Bush-Obama stimulus.

 

[Reaver197]

That's a fantastic chart there.

It sort of reminds me about how the plan to install detectors and secure all US seaports against the smuggling of nuclear materials would cost a one-time $2 billion, but Congress only alloted $93 million for it.

At the same time, our dismal failure of a "war on drugs" costs us close to $100 billion annually to enforce and carry out apparently. Even if one cannot stomach the ending of a prohibition on all drugs, the prohibition on marijuana alone, the one drug that is most clearly inappropriately illegal, costs about $4 billion annually.

I pulled all these figures from Sam Harris' End Of Faith. Needless to say, these numbers have probably increased since the publication of the book.