Everyone gather around. Confused23 front and center.

Zaphod · March 27, 2006, 12:55am

Some would disagree with you, and perhaps with good reason.

There is a growing battle within the scientific community concerning “Creation Science”. It has nothing to do with the sciences being debated, but rather if they SHOULD be debated.

You see, a lot of people have invested a LOT of time, money, and FAME into evolution, and anything that might challenge that is, by definition, a threat. So if tomorrow some scientist out there actually came up with PROOF of A God, how inclined would they really be to listen? Not much.

Sadly, however, too many Creationists have either done poor science or just made stuff up, which hurts the credibility of the movement. Equally, the evolutionists don’t want anything upsetting their little applecart. Either way, the TRUTH suffers.

I, for one, am perfectly content believing that God created the universe, and that evolution is simply the way we humans describe HOW He did it.

Regardless, I find it laughable that simply saying,

“Today we are going to begin studying Evolution. This is a scientific theory that has a great deal of evidence to support it, but also a good number of questions. Some believe that the universe was created as-is by a supreme being, while others believe that everything evolved from nothing. In this class, we are simply going to examine what science has told us based upon what we see in the world around us. As to how it got started, well, that’s another class altogether. Turn to page 24, please.”

Will land you in a courtroom these days, because the God-haters out there (who are more zealous than any Christian you can name) simply REFUSE to allow even the MENTION of God in any school, despite the fact His name is spoken all over our public buildings, in our founding documents, and throughout our history.

Interesting. You begin by asking, “Who cares?”. Well, if that’s true, then why does the left insist of redefining something that has had one and only one definition for thousands of years? I mean, who cares, right? If t’s not important, why bring it up? Just call it a civil union and be done with it.

But NOOOOOOOOO. They know damned well that what they are doing ISN’T legitimate, so instead of just living the lifestyle (their choice, I’ll agree), no, they have to go and REDEFINE everyone ELSE’S life.

BTW, your definition for marriage would be rejected, too. Some idiot in England recently married (yep, that’s the word they used) a PORPOISE.

So, marriage would need to be defined as a union between two things. Wonderful. :rolleyes:

No double standards, eh?

You mean like when Jesse Jackson and the rest of that bunch pass the plate and then give the funds to the democrats, but NOTHING happens to their tax-exempt status?

Get rid of the double-standard FOR REAL, and then maybe I’ll buy it. As for all of them losing tax-exempt status, I couldn’t care less.

Wow. Fox News. That’s all you can name?

Okay. Let me list the LIBERAL media:

ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Miami Herald, Time, Newsweek. I just rattled those off the top of my head.

The media is independent, the problem is it’s insincere. When you listen to Rush Limbaugh, you KNOW he is a Conservative, and you KNOW you’re going to get the news and comentary from that angle. Don’t like it? Al Franken (assuming Air Amerika is still on the air) is right down the dial.

However, the rest of the media LOVES to wax eloquent on how independent and non-partisan and impartial they are, but there are entire BOOKS written by FORMER MEDIA people DOCUMENTING their liberal bias. Dan Rather doctors up a story about documents that turn out to be forgeries. New York Times screws up twice in one week when it publishes stories that later turn out not to be true. An ABC executive sends out an e-mail saying how much he hates the guy. Notice nothing ever PRO-Bush or PRO-war, or PRO-Conservative seems to come out of these “oops”. Nope, it’s always a mistake that made someone on the right look bad, then they bury the correction in the Fighter pages (F-14, P-38, F-18, F-22).

What needs to happen is that the media should be held to a standard that clearly separates NEWS from OPINION. They have every right in the world to skewer Bush or anyone else, ON THE EDITORIAL PAGE, but when they start inventing polls or slanting the NEWS to support their agenda, then they need to be held accountable.

You guys really need to get a grip on this media thing. Fox News is the most popular news channel because it at least TRIES to be fair and balanced. You see liberals AND Conservatives battling it out on that channel. On CNN, you’re lucky if you get one Conservative on there in a week.

Legacy points or any other standard a private university uses to accept applicants is its own business and none of yours. If they don’t want you, tough toenails. Deal with it. I anted to go to nuke school and didn’t get in. If I were a liberal I would have sued for discrimination against Hispanics or something, but the fact remains that they had their standards and I didn’t meet them. Doom on me. I learned from it, though!

As for government aid to schools: WHY? Show me where in the United States Constitution it authorizes the federal government to do ANYTHING involving education. I can show you where it specifically says it CAN’T be involved, for no other reason that it wasn’t specifically granted the authority.

As for this “lower class” BS, I’m not buying it. I have a bachelor’s degree and two masters. You know how much I paid to get them? ZERO. USNA was free (and I got 5 years work experience afterwards), and my EMPLOYER (yes, one of those greedy, evil, Fortune 500 corporations) paid a full ride for BOTH of my masters, and not just for me, but for 5 co-workers, too, as well as dozens of others who got degrees gratis.

What needs to happen is that people need to stop waiting for the government to show up and pull their tails out of the mire instead of doing it themselves. Too many people have decided to use our safety net as a hammock.

The Department of Education should be abolished completely. a) It’s unconstitutional, as nowhere is the Federal Government authorized by the Constitution to be involved in education. b) The DOE doesn’t educate anyone. It’s nothing but a bunch of bureucrats and union thugs throwing their weight around and wasting our money. You want public education? Go talk to your state governments.

You claimed you were in favor of vouchers. If we’re going to insist on this fraud of publicly-funded education, then I say we do it with vouchers and let the parents decide where their kids go. But NOOOOOOO!!! We can’t do that because (horror of horrors) the parents may send their kids to a RELIGIOUS SCHOOL! (Insert Comfy Chair sound here). The NEA fraks out every time the topic is brought up because they know their gravy train will derail if vouchers go through. Don’t you love liberals? Pro-choice, but only when a child DIES. Otherwise, they’re so anti-choice it’s pathetic.

Zaphod · March 27, 2006, 1:00am

Well, I’m going to bed, now. Don’t know when I’ll be able to get back here, but I will when I can.

Read what I said and THINK. Don’t FEEL. THINK.

The problem with liberalism is that it’s all based on EMOTION. They can’t even go to a funeral anymore without it turning into a hate-dripping rally against… whatever (they seem to hate everything these days except terrorists). Don’t fall for that kind of stupidity. You strike me as a smart kid who wants to believe in what’s right. Well, I just gave you a whole bunch of it, but YOU have to read it and THINK about it before you’ll understand and BELIEVE it.

It’s why it takes a while to swing from liberal to Conservative. Much thought is involved, as well as the shattering of too many paradigms put in place by the naivete of youth.

Hang in there.

bz2010 · March 27, 2006, 8:46am

Z - Best post(s) ever!
Appreciate the time you spent posting that - should be required reading for every American! Seriously.
BZ Zaphod - Well Done!

confused23 · March 27, 2006, 4:27pm

zaphod your post was pathetic , it was a bunch of ranting , raving, and machismo. I’ll elaborate later, but let’s just say you were full of something.

Duke80 · March 27, 2006, 4:47pm

Yikes. Until now was just lurking and enjoying the passion of youth and the wisdom that comes with age. I had been (note use of past tense) impressed by you, confused23, even if I disagreed with most everything you said. But your latest disrespectful reply to Zaphod–who took more time than most of us were willing to devote to you–means you aren’t yet a serious person. Next.

snipper_cr · March 27, 2006, 5:54pm

I have been lurking on this for a while, enjoying what seemed to be a rather intelectual debate.

Zaph, your last post was completely amazing! It was organized very thoughtfully, very mature and cohierent (did i mention you spell alot better than i do?). As a liberal I dont agree with most of your sayings, but I can greatly respect you as a person because of your beleifs.

I have to agree with Duke80 on this too… Up until the last post of confused i thought this was turning out well. However such comments do not belong in a intilectual debate.

DMeix · March 27, 2006, 6:08pm

Confused…I fail to see the point in this debate if you’re willing to spew out everything you believe, but have no desire or willingness to hear what others have to think. Typical liberals…it should have been expected.

The fact that Zaphod started this thread for you…yes FOR YOU…and is even replying to your crazy ideas means he deserves a helluva lot more credit than you are giving him.

As for Zaphod…Bravo Zulu, my friend. Confused may not appreciate what he’s reading now, but one of these days, when he’s no longer ‘under the influence’ of those adults he hangs around, he’ll understand.

Spidermom · March 27, 2006, 7:15pm

Confused, you seem to be like two people to me. One is the earnest, intellectual, idealistic young person and the other is just immature and … well, let’s just leave it at immature. I am sad 'cause I thought this would end up in a respectful “we agree to disagree”. Too bad.

To steal a line from Duke80, Next.

wpwannabe · March 27, 2006, 7:22pm

I also have been lurking around this thread and had too hoped that Confused would be able to pull his head from the place the sun doth not shine for long enough to articulate an intelligent response. Clearly that has not been the case. Like you SM, I am confunded by how this guy seems to be two completely different people. It’s like he’s having his little brother type his responses or something.

Confused, start presenting yourself respectfully and we will be able to respect you. Until then, I won’t waste anymore time on you.

BTW… Zap, that post was genius. If only we had more guys like you in Washington :D

Zaphod · March 27, 2006, 7:27pm

Well, I can see this investment of time and effort was worth it… :rolleyes:

No biggie. I met an absolutely charming (and smoking hot, I might add) young lady on the plane today who was having a devil of a time with her Chemistry (which she is studying as part of becoming a Physician’s Assistant). I was able to help her a bit, and although she’ll be 1,500 miles away with her boyfriend (:(), at least I’ll have the pleasure of knowing that my efforts to assist are appreciated by the recipient.

I thank everyone who was so kind with their words and support. I look forward to future, more productive, conversations.

BEAT ARMY!

Oh, and snipper, don’t let the spelling fool you. If it weren’t for editing… ;)

I’d never get elected. Way too many people are spot-welded to the bloated sow of the Federal Government to allow a guy with a .45 and a prybar to have his way with it.

But I’ll graciously accept your vote of confidence with due humility and gratitude. :D

BTW, if anyone has any comments or ideas (corrections?) on what I posted, or still has questions, I’ll be more than happy to continue the discussion with you. It is open discussion and the need to defend one’s views that allows one to hone them and make them both realistic and persuasive.

Sorry Confused. The invitation no longer applies to you. You had your chance and blew it. I can accept naivete and being misinformed, but I will not tolerate unprovoked rudeness from anyone. You’re dismissed.

system · March 28, 2006, 12:12am

Confused, after reading your first post in this thread, I thought, yep, this kid thinks about things and I can admire that. And then I ask myself ‘why didn’t he do this before instead of just coming in and landblasting people on an academy forum’? Then you go back on the “I’m right, you’re a piece of crap” kind of stuff. You seem to be the type of kid that can debate your points pretty well. You’re young & impassioned. You could seek to do better with some of your goals by getting a better handle on your emotions and gaining some civility in projecting your beliefs. You don’t have much in common with the folks who hang out here and you’ve let us all know what you think of us and our kids in that previous thread that disappeared via the CC Gods. Just stop & think about why you’re here & what you hope to accomplish. What will change? Us or you or nothing at all? We believe in what our kids are doing and you having this little forum to use as a debate outlet serves no purpose other than for you to rant some more at us. I really do wish you the best in these first years of gaining your higher education. I hope much will be learned about the ways of the world.
Just promise you won’t join up with PETA when you get to Berkley…
Dismissed…
Congrats to USMMA brand new Midshipmen!

wpwannabe · March 28, 2006, 2:33am

Hehe, Zap. What we really do need is more P*ss n Vinegar, and less bull crap. The more convoluted it gets the less and less I want to care. More action, less debate. Every day decisions are made (or not made) that affect our troops. We need people to lead that understand what it’s like to be down there, in the sandbox, so that they can make decisions that benefit our boys over there, and not push an agenda so as to get reelected.

To be honest I think Bush has been a pansy his second term. He has nothing to lose; its time to start taking action. No lame duck for this presidency, lets get things done. Things that we couldn’t have dreamed of while his reelection was still at stake. Throw the liberal crap out the window and get back to basics. Look at the constitution for God’s sake!!

Anyway. We need more people that truly think like a fresh idealistic 2LT. People that have not yet been clouded by the liberal taintings of government. It makes me think of the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” I loved that guy because he was so passionate and still completely innocent, not yet corrupted by the power as everyone else was. Our government, even among Republicans, has become corrupted to a degree. It’s time to DEMAND change. If we don’t like the current state of being it is our responsibility to take action in defense of what this country truly stands for. Says so in the Dec. of Independence. If our government can’t pull it together in the next decade or so I forsee a multitude of problems that we would never have seen coming. Bush needs to lead this revolution of thought. He needs to get people off their *sses and realize that this liberal crap of “there is no right or wrong, do whatever you want” is just that: crap.

We need a change in America or we will fall. No matter how booming our economy might be or how powerful we seem, we can still fall if we can’t hold true to our basic principles. We will destroy ourselves from the inside out.

Those are just some of my thoughts, kinda a rant, sorry :D

Zaphod · March 28, 2006, 6:50am

I agree, and I LIKE the guy.

Campaign Finance “Reform”, illegal immigration (about time this is being discussed), allowing Ted “The Swimmer” Kennedy to write the education bill, not coming out and defending the war more forcefully, not coming out and slamming Mayor “Chocolate Factory” Nagin and the governor of Louisiana for THEIR complete failure to prepare for Katrina, not forcefully defending Social Security reform, allowing drunken-sailor-type spending, so forth and so on.

Hardly a Conservative, but still far better than the alternatives. His biggest selling points have been his handing of the War on Terror (absolutely no retreat, which I LOVE), and his ability to still connect with the people as just another person (as opposed to so elitist snob who seems to think eating a Philly steak sub is beneath him).

It’s really a shame that’s the way we have to pick them these days. It would be so much better if we had two firebreathers from each side laying it on the line.

LFWB_dad · March 28, 2006, 7:25am

This guy has a bit more experience than our friend <a href=“http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/biography.htm[/url]”>http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/biography.htm</a>

Feel insecure about global security? No need
By THOMAS P. BARNETT
March 26, 2006

We have never lived in a more peaceful world than we do today never.
I know that statement goes against everything you’ve been told by the mass media, and I realize it contradicts the amazing climate of fear that’s gripped this country since 9/11.

But it’s absolutely true.

Our world today is more crowded than it’s ever been, and yet we’ve never had a smaller percentage of humanity either engaging in or preparing for mass violence. We’re not entering an age of perpetual war, as some would have it. Instead, we’re moving into the century that will feature more peace than any before it.

Here are the facts from the “Human Security Report 2005,” prepared by University of British Columbia:

Armed conflicts decreased by more than 40 percent since the early 1990s.

Genocide and politically inspired murders have dropped by roughly 80 percent since the late 1980s, with only the Middle East suffering an increase.

International crises have decreased to the point where today we suffer roughly one-quarter the number we routinely endured just a generation ago.

Secessionist movements and resulting civil wars are at their lowest levels since the mid-1970s.

Military coups have steadily decreased over the past four decades, from 25 in 1963 to just 10 in 2004 and each of those 10 attempts failed.

Global defense spending and arms sales peaked in the late 1980s and now sit at roughly one-half of those levels except in “fear factor” America, of course.

Global troop levels are likewise down significantly since the late 1980s, and war-related deaths have decreased to a stunning degree: 50 years ago, the average war killed 38,000 troops, while today’s wars average 600 combat casualties.

Similarly, global refugees from conflicts dropped by almost half since 1992.

Finally, more than 60 dictatorships have disappeared over the past 30 years, which helps explain why human rights abuses are down across the planet.
What changed over the past quarter century?

Three things: (1) the Soviets went away; (2) the U.S. stepped up to the plate as global enforcer; and (3) the global economy expanded dramatically, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty.

Here’s the clincher: International terrorist attacks are down by more than half since the early 1980s. But there’s a catch: the number of high-casualty attacks are up several fold, and so, too, are deaths from those attacks.

Some perspective: The world averaged 3,500 annual deaths from international terrorism over the past decade. Compare that to a steady historical global murder rate that’s more than 100 times higher, and you have to ask yourself if terrorism truly dominates our human security agenda, as many experts declare.

I’ve been in the business of international security for almost 20 years, and they’ve been very good years. I’m not taking credit. I’m just saying it’s apparently gotten a whole lot better since I showed up!

When I started in this field, I worked briefly on strategic nuclear missile targeting strategies in effect, plotting to blow up the entire planet. That’s where things still stood at the end of the Cold War. By the middle of my career in the 1990s, I was focused like most in my field on thwarting the plans of regional rogue states like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Yeah, I know, we’ve still got a few left that we’re working on, like North Korea’s murderous Kim Jong Il.

But, today, like so many in my business, I spend much of my work day worrying about catastrophic terrorism.

Now, many international security experts would describe my career journey as an accumulation of dangers as in, nukes plus rogue regimes plus terrorism. But I see it as evidence of the downshifting of global violence from great power wars to regional wars to transnational terrorism, and the Canadian report’s historical data clearly support my interpretation.

By drilling down to terrorism, we’ve gotten ourselves deep into the weeds of global conflict. Sure, it’s messy and nasty, but it isn’t nuclear global Armageddon by any stretch of the imagination. And, with classic interstate wars going the way of the dinosaur, terrorism rises to the top of the pile solely by default it’s the biggest threat we’ve got left.

Remember that the next time you hug your kid. We are leaving them a better, safer world.

Thomas P.M. Barnett is a distinguished strategist at Oak Ridge Center for Advanced Studies and author of “Blueprint for Action: A Future Worth Creating.” Read his blog at <a href=“http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog[/url]”>www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog</a>. Contact him at <a href="mailto:tom@thomaspmbarnett.com">tom@thomaspmbarnett.com</a>.

Zaphod · March 28, 2006, 8:11am

[SnivelingLiberalVoice]

Well, THAT’S simply because AMERICA has all it’s TROOPS concentrated in Iraq and Afghanistan! THAT’S why!

BUSH SUCKS! IT’S ALL HIS FAULT! WHAT TERRORISTS?

[/SnivelingLiberalVoice]

:rolleyes:

snipper_cr · March 28, 2006, 1:21pm

[sarcasm]
What Zaph? You dont want a Chocolate City? Of course, Nagin knew absolutely NOTHING about the hurricane and is completely innocent!
[/sarcasm]

Since this debate with the big C is over, that could make a really good debate - how the hurricane episode was/is being handled.

Bill0510 · March 28, 2006, 1:31pm

For a vision of an over-regulated society, C could look to his beloved France. Unemployment hovering around 10% --up to 40% among certain minorities and the young – Why? Because once hired, it is extremely difficult to fire somebody. Employers won’t hire somebody if they run the risk of not being able to fire them.

The French government seeks to change the law such that within the first two years, an employer would be able to fire the new employees. Encourage employers to make new hires. What happens? As usual, the French protest any effort to improve efficiency. [Apart from Fries, what have they produced anyway?]

Iraq or Iran? [that would be EYERAN here in Texas or IRAAN–a real town in Texas] Know what … . I’m old, I can get cranky, and I don’t try to spend too much time on stupid stuff such as this. [Although, clearly, I get drawn in from time to time.] In any event, as I have said before, the middle east is just one giant cesspool. If it weren’t for oil, I wouldn’t care one little bit if we completely ignored the area [just like the good ol’ days] or completely enslaved the area in partnership with the Russians and the Chinese.

DMeix · March 28, 2006, 2:58pm

“[Apart from Fries, what have they produced anyway?]”

Toast

and plenty of white flags to go around!

Spidermom · March 28, 2006, 5:14pm

Ooh, y’all are making me so happy baggin’ on the French again!

I believe we need an alternative energy project equal in intensity to the Manhattan project. Get us off oil now so we can tell those dipdunks in the Middle East to take a hike. They can enjoy living in the stone age again. Unless they find a way to grow drugs in the desert, their economic power will be nonexistent.

Bill0510 · March 28, 2006, 5:40pm

WWWD is the question.

Everyone gather around. Confused23 front and center.

CONNECT WITH US