The debate for dummies
If using a nuclear weapon in the Middle East would eliminate the threat of global terrorism, would it be worth it?
Note: This is a theorhetical example, I'm not in any way, shape or form saying that this is what I believe or that it is a reasonable assumption. Just a question to bound the issue of what steps might or might not be reasonable in this new era of war.
Note: This is a theorhetical example, I'm not in any way, shape or form saying that this is what I believe or that it is a reasonable assumption. Just a question to bound the issue of what steps might or might not be reasonable in this new era of war.
The other serious political discussion that came up last night was the idea of bringing peace/stability to other nations around the world while we still have poverty, unemployemnt, starvation and lack of education in our own country.
Should we focus all of our energy within our border or should we continue to help others rise up as we raise ourselves up? If we should continue to help others, what's the proper balance?
Should we focus all of our energy within our border or should we continue to help others rise up as we raise ourselves up? If we should continue to help others, what's the proper balance?
Originally Posted by brantshali,Oct 7 2004, 02:14 PM
The other serious political discussion that came up last night was the idea of bringing peace/stability to other nations around the world while we still have poverty, unemployemnt, starvation and lack of education in our own country.
Should we focus all of our energy within our border or should we continue to help others rise up as we raise ourselves up? If we should continue to help others, what's the proper balance?
Should we focus all of our energy within our border or should we continue to help others rise up as we raise ourselves up? If we should continue to help others, what's the proper balance?
I suppose this is my socialist side speaking, but our government has too many people who are more concerned with how the top 1% is doing and not enough concerned with how the bottom 1% is doing.
What a neat question. I was ready with one answer and then another.. now I'm not sure.
I made a statement the other day (not here) that while Saddam was in power there was a lot of suffering and misery in Iraq but the rest of the world was safer than it is now. I stand by that.
Martha Stewart? I think she's an example of a great threat to our society though not the most extreme. Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers, and Dennis Kozlowski are responsible for the loss (to real people) of $3 billion of share values. The threat is greed and lack of ethics and values.
If you live your life as a values based citizen but fight for your survival using any tactic available... is that a contradiction? I'm thinking about that.
As for being under the constant watchful eye 24/7... we're pretty much there.
I made a statement the other day (not here) that while Saddam was in power there was a lot of suffering and misery in Iraq but the rest of the world was safer than it is now. I stand by that.
Martha Stewart? I think she's an example of a great threat to our society though not the most extreme. Ken Lay, Bernie Ebbers, and Dennis Kozlowski are responsible for the loss (to real people) of $3 billion of share values. The threat is greed and lack of ethics and values.
If you live your life as a values based citizen but fight for your survival using any tactic available... is that a contradiction? I'm thinking about that.
As for being under the constant watchful eye 24/7... we're pretty much there.
Originally Posted by brantshali,Oct 7 2004, 12:11 PM
Another theorhetical question:
If you had to choose between sex and bacon which would you choose?
If you had to choose between sex and bacon which would you choose?
Originally Posted by WestSideBilly,Oct 7 2004, 12:20 PM
I firmly believe we have the resources to accomplish both, though not the focus.
I suppose this is my socialist side speaking, but our government has too many people who are more concerned with how the top 1% is doing and not enough concerned with how the bottom 1% is doing.
I suppose this is my socialist side speaking, but our government has too many people who are more concerned with how the top 1% is doing and not enough concerned with how the bottom 1% is doing.








