knapplc

First off, way to be ignorant on contraception. There are millions and millions of married women who use them, sometimes for birth control and family planning. Othertimes for issues involving the the female reproductive system. Two, 100% bogus arguement for anyone who does not follow your religion. Three, at what point in human history did everyone (or even most people) waited for sex til after marrige? People are just more honest and willing to talk about it, and not hide it like they were in past. Four, don't fool yourself, the main reason the Bible preaches no sex til marrige is about property rights in a patriarchal society. The rich and powerful men wanted to make sure only thier offspring would inherit. Its not what they will tell you in church, but its the truth. First of all, this whole arguement is based on the amendment Freedom of religion and dirrected right at one religion in particular. So no it is NOT 100% bogus for this arguement. It is pretty simple really if you don't like the beliefs of your employer leave. The reason that that the Catholic religion believes you should not have premarital sex is because sex is suppose to be for creating life. I do no that married people use contraceptives to be financially responsible and other medical reasons, but this is why they say premarital sex is sinful. I know that's the party line, but I believe the real-world reason has far more to do with strigori's (correct) comment about property rights in a patriarchal society.

Carl, you are playing stupid again. Go back and read the posts in this thread. I read it again. Your statements are still at odds. I asked if North Korea would quit militaristic posturing if we left the Korean peninsula. Somehow you tried to say that NK has plenty of of artillery but little ability to invade or occupy. (Side note: Your answer doesn't really address my question.) I replied with the size of their forces. You said that NK forces sound scary . . . but on paper only. Then you admit that a city of 10 million exists only so long as NK wants it to exist. What am I missing, exactly? I saw the same conundrum and almost commented on it, but realized I'd get the same response you got.

They've done it before. Granted, they didn't do it while the U.S. had such expressed interest in the region, but they had a much wiser leader back then. Today... who knows? I wouldn't have put it past Kim Jung Il to invade, and we really don't know what we're getting with Kim Jong Un.

Well, this is true. I have met with physicians who earn twice that in a year, and another colleague worked with a physician earning five times that per year, not including bonuses (not sure if there were bonuses). But that is not the norm.

That sounds scary... but on paper only. Seriously. A million-man army, no matter how poorly equipped, can make a hell of a mess and cost a lot of money and lives before it's contained. Pretending it's irrelevant is some major-league silliness. Seoul is what? Ten miles from the border? Less? It makes a LOT of sense to keep a close eye on the N. Koreans.

There's a Title IX angle to consider. If you add a Hockey team, what female sport are you going to add, and what will that cost? We've already got inexpensive female sports in Bowling, Rifle and Soccer (also Swim/Dive doesn't seem that costly once the facilities are paid for), so to add Hockey you're going to have to add an equal amount of female athletes, and the most-readily available sports that would be relatively inexpensive are already taken up.

Two hundred thousand dollars for a degree is too much, even for a medical degree. In that respect, I agree that the benefit is (likely) not worth the cost. Here's a +1. It's not much considering your pay-down debt, but it's something.

Honestly, I think a lot of the reason most countries prohibit drug use is the fear that it will have a negative impact on GDP. Stoned workers are less likely to want to work, or produce quality work. I just watched some show where they talked about a country in Europe that had legalized a lot of hardcore drugs, and there wasn't much of a discernible effect. Am I misremembering or did anyone else watch this, or does anyone else know which country this is? I'm thinking Denmark or Switzerland or some northern European country. Not Holland, but maybe, since they've already got the legal pot thing going on.

Yeah, but those people were all degenerates.

Nebraska Huskers ‏ @Huskers Congratulations to #Huskers RB Rex Burkhead who was just named the 2012 Uplifting Athletes Award Winner. Way to go Rex...GO BIG RED! #B1G From Randy York's blog: LINK to Randy's blog

Moved some posts to the Shed. Have fun.

The factual basis is these cartels are a direct result of the drugs being prohibited in the first place. There was never an illegal drug trade until we started prohibiting drugs. Take away their whole reason for existing, they don't exist. Except that you can still buy black-market pharmaceuticals that are perfectly legal to this day. Which market is bigger for those? Legal or black-market? That's not the point. The point is the market exists, which means that simply legalizing cocaine won't eliminate these cartels.

The factual basis is these cartels are a direct result of the drugs being prohibited in the first place. There was never an illegal drug trade until we started prohibiting drugs. Take away their whole reason for existing, they don't exist. Except that you can still buy black-market pharmaceuticals that are perfectly legal to this day.

Unfortunately, they've already been unleashed on society. And no, I can't agree that legalizing and regulating them would cause more harm than, say, funding murderous drug cartels than make them available to the public anyways. You're apparently presuming that the drug cartels will simply dry up and wither away if drugs are legalized? Where is the factual basis for that? Why would they stop rather than acting as a black market source? It's done a lot more harm than good, and it's not even close. Again, any factual basis for this opinion? You're claiming that the goal of removing drugs from society is not beneficial? Sorry, that's entirely not true. Because the program has been poorly implemented doesn't in any way make its goals harmful.

Not necessarily. I am for legalizing it and i don't do drugs. Spending 10 billion a year on the war against drugs when it could go to better places is what gets me pissed. making drugs illegal infacts glamerizes it even more than if it was legal. People like to do things they aren't suppose to but less likely to do things that are legal. It was an easy mistake to make, considering your post on da sker's Status Update the other day:

We've seen steps toward concessions from the North Koreans before, only to see them fall back to hard-line stances. But with Kim Jong Il out of the picture and Kim Jong Un now in control, could this be a sign that the North Koreans are ready to seek peace? Here's hoping...

I have practiced Carlfensian architecture. Tile project in my condo. Probably spent twice what it would have cost to have a pro do it, and it was crappy quality.

I'm far more likely to smoke (legal) pot than to drink whiskey. One is nice, the other heinous. Same goes with most strong liquors. Heck, if it wasn't for the ridiculously addictive qualities of most hardcore drugs, I'd like to try them. I'd like to know what the big deal is about opium/laudanum, cocaine, heroin, etc. I've been drunk, I've been high, but I've never been drugged. I'm curious, but not curious enough to 1) break the law, or 2) run the risk of addiction.

The Tudors were a ruling family of England. A "Tudor house" is a house built along the architectural style that was popular during the reign of the Tudors. It's akin to Gothic architecture, Elizabethan architecture, etc.

I think marijuana should be legal and I don't smoke. I should probably have clarified that I was referring to the OP. And for the record, I smoked pot in high school, and I probably would on occasion today if it was legal.

One of many real American heroes in just that one company. And there were many, throughout the ETO and PTO. Great quote by Compton here: “Second platoon was indeed ‘blessed’ to have Buck Compton as our leader. He was a quiet and strong officer who, above all, listened and talked to the men under his command. I could never say enough to express my thanks and admiration for Buck Compton.” - William ‘Wild Bill’ Guarnere

We are never going to legalize stuff like crack, meth, heroin, cocaine, etc. Mood-altering drugs like this unleashed on society would cause far more harm than "the war on drugs" ever did. The war on drugs hasn't been terribly effective. But that doesn't mean it's without merit, or that its goals are not beneficial to society. And any time I read "time to legalize it," inevitably that means the person who wrote it smokes, and wants to do it without getting busted.

I don't think she was a Tudor. She looks like a Stuart... maybe a Plantagenet. But definitely not a Tudor.

Alice in Chains said it best. "To some, God's name, is smack" Love the band, but I think that it doesn't work in this context The way I take the lyrics seems to. Religion makes some people wacked crazy, and 'smack' is certainly a reference to heroin. People get high and crazy on both of em. They stole that line from the old saw, "Religion is the opiate of the masses." Largely attributed to Karl Marx, but it predates his writings (or, at least, his published writings) in several publications. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.- Karl Marx, 1843 LINK Their so-called religion acts merely as an opiate: irritating, numbing, calming their pain out of weakness. (translated from German)- Novalis. 1798 LINK The Marquis de Sade wrote about "numbing the people to the pain of their daily existence (paraphrase)" in Juliette: You fear the powerful eye of genius, that is why you encourage ignorance. This opium you feed your people, so that, drugged, they do not feel their hurts, inflicted by you. And that is why where you reign no establishments are to be found giving great men to the homeland; the rewards due knowledge are unknown here, and as there is neither honor nor profit in being wise, nobody seeks after wisdom. (translated from French)- Sade, 1797 LINK

You can accuse Obama of lots of things, and be correct. But "idiot" is not one of those things. The guy is really, really smart. That doesn't automatically equate to "great president," but he's certainly not an idiot. The closest thing we've had to an idiot in the presidency, at least in recent memory, is George Bush. The second one. I'm not sold on really, really smart. The guy can present himself well but some of the things said off the cuff make me scratch my head. As far as education. Is it worth the cost these days? I'm missing the dumb comments, I guess. Or, I'm missing the amount of dumb comments that exceed those of his recent contemporaries in that office. Stick a mic in a president's face seven times a day and he's bound to say something that doesn't come out right. Heck, Bush II made a career of it. But to the point, that doesn't mean Obama is not smart. He's sharp. Regarding the bold, I don't know what it costs these days. I know it's significantly higher than it was 20 years ago when I went to college, and I'm really concerned about paying for school for my kid when the time comes. There is a lot to be said about having a college degree. Over the course of a lifetime the average college grad makes about a million dollars more than a non-graduate, but those are old numbers from a study a year or five ago. Not sure what that would be today, or even if that will hold true to as we go on. I tend to think it's better to have a degree than not.... but the cost is a growing factor in that discussion.