So, If I don't like the government, at this particular time, I should leave?

I wouldn't know what you would do, I like the government.

gone

This post has been edited by jonajosa: Aug 11 2005, 04:19 AM

How does Bush justify taking 50 vactions in five years?

My Theory is:
They must have made a robot to run in office for him.



Actually, it's probably to meet those protesting mothers.

I found the number of vacations to be a lot less than 50.

That's a good thing, I like having discussions with people who dissagree with me, but on most forums, all I get is YUR GAY!!1 BUSH IS TEH GOD AND JESUS AGREES!!11!! YOU H8 JESUS!!1, so it is good to see civilized discussions about politics in a forum that nurtures our thoughts, opinions and ideas.

Let me define responsibility for you guys, just so you understand what I mean when I say Bush needs to accept responsibility for the soldier's death.

Responsibility is a two way street, and responsibility is shared, not kept, by everyone who did any one little thing to push something in one direction or another, to get the ball rolling toward this "event" that the said people are responsible for. It could be, say, making 40 million dollars for your company. To make this forty million dollars, you had to hire thirty-five guys to do whatever necessary to make that money. Now you learn one of them, in doing whatever necessary, was sued for attempted blackmail. You share responsilbity for his blackmail, because you ordered them to do whatever necessary. Now here's the thing, you just made 40 million dollars, and when the boss asks who's responsible, it was you, and you get to reap the rewards for being the one responsible for this, and therefore, you can take this "lawsuit" as an acceptible sacrifice. That is what responsibility means. Bush is responsible for that soldier's death, and he needs to accept that, and to me the only way he can convince me he's got the balls to look his means in the face and say, "I know what I'm doing here" is to go to that woman, look her in the eyes and tell her why her son died.

If it were Martin Luther King Jr in Bush's position right now I'd say the same thing, even if I thought it was a justified war I would say the same thing. You have to accept all the responsibility for the reactions that are caused by your actions, the good and the bad.

you'll find that I am not one to insult someone like that. If however I do insult someone it wil usally be over PM so the "public" doesn't get invloved. I too enjoy talking with peopl e who dissagree with me which is why im here now.

Some of my "best" friends here on the forum happen to be the people I don't understand. Like Stargazey or Doomed. I like those guys because of those reasons.


Call me Jesus freak. Someone who ties his political opinions in with what the bible says. Which is somthing I hope people will not like me less for.

Really? In that case, Jesus voted for Jonh Kerry. Hahaha! I win!

It's funny, I can't find a respectful debate in forums made specifically for debating but I can find one here. Heh, I remember once I was banned from a forum because I said the Over-Population thing is a lie and that this world produces enough grain alone to give every human being 3500 calories a day. Some people just hate the truth.

A good topic to discuss. As I think it was red or gamer brought this up earlier.

Famine and food production?

Though I think over-population may be somthing to consider in the maybe near future I don't think it should be a major concern now. People however will keep dieing because of lack of food because countries that can spare the food will not give it to them. We try though sometimes like that "Stop poverty" show they had awhile back. The money the collect though goes to only about 1/32 of the poeple who need it. Its going to take global comitment to work that out which is going to be hard with countries getting at each others necks.

Here's a case with Bolivia, a country that suffers with more starving people per capita than any other country. This country produces enough food to feed their population something like 5 times over, but such a large portion of their food is outsourced, and most of the remaining goes to the rochest 5% of the country. Over population is not the problem, it's simply lack of intelligent distribution. We have the food to make everyone on earth a fat pig.

Another myth is that in countries like India where the population is climbing drastically, it's because of lack of information about contraceptives or something, but it's not. The truth is, poor families have lot's of children as security investments. They tend to have lot's of children because that means more working hands, and it means when they're older there are better chances that some in the family will take care of them. These lower income guys aren't humping monkeys, they're trying to adjust to a very bad situation any way they can.

One of the biggest problems of famine and death in certain countries is due to their governments, warlords and donation thieves. On a program I saw a man was collecting things like beds and toys for third world countries in Africa, but when he got to Africa, donation thieves demanded they get a share and took many of the collected goods and supplies.

Another example was a warlord, Mohammad Farid Aidid, who used food as a wepon in the Somolian conflicts. He demanded his people to fight the Americans or else they will never be given their food.

and also there's large corporations that have helped create HIPC's (heavily indebted poor countries) by seemingly offering them aid. but instead they offer loans with ridiculous interest rates (like 300% no joke) and the countries can't even keep up paying the interest on the loans.

i eman it may not have direct correlation with food distribution, if a country has a fortune to pay of in loans, they will do whatever they can to scrape up some money.

I completely agree. Why would you give someone a loa if you know they can't pay it off and they'll die trying? Its insanity.

Jona, why'd you ignore my question?


Did you like President Clinton?

maybe because the topic changed from the war and bush to overpopulation?

Back on topic -

I don't think overpopulation is a problem at all. Just because people are starving doesn't mean that place is overpopulated. Usually lack of money and corrupt government are the reasons, not lack of food due to overpopulation.

like the poor farmers in India. Notice that no rich people are starving over there - because they have a better opportunity and more money. They bribe the government (believe it or not, a lot of government officials take bribes, even in the US) so that they can throw people out of their farms and clai it as their own, forcing families out on the street and giving the rich people more profit. This isn't a once every ten years kind of thing, this is quite frequent.

I must compliment you all for making very interesting posts from which much can be learnt and much can be considered....no hard-talk just sensible, good posts


Cake for all of you!!

alright, time for some definitions, then a post

Overpopulation- Value judgement reflecting an observation or conviction that a current environment cannot sustain its present population.

Carrying Capacity- The number of organisms an environment can support.
In the case of humans,however, carrying capacity is defined as the number of humans an area can support on a sustained basis given the prevailing technology.

So overpopulation is a relative term. But the term for carrying capacity helps us clear up part of the issue in determining whether the world today is overpopulated.

Everyone knows that populations grow exponentially (,2,4,16,256,etc), but it was once believed that food production grew in a linear fashion (1,2,3,4,5,etc). So a theory was developed by a man named Malthus that stated:

now this theory was believed as true until 1965 when Ester Boserup created her theory which stated :


or simply put, the as population increased mankind would develop a new method of agriculture that would yield more crops and thus produce enough food to feed the existing population.

This theory was put into play in 1944 with the launch of the Green revolution. This agricultural movement was started by the U.S. agency for international development to increase yields by using:

1)New crop cultivars
2)irrigation
3)fertilizers
4)pesticides
5)mechanization.

With the ultimte goal of eliminating hunger by improving crop performance.

Needless to say biotechnology was used to produce strains of crops that reacted better to fertilizers (i.e. produced more crops, instead of just creating more leaves) and that could be grown closer together by having a high resistance to pests and disease.

The green revolution was succesful, but it also had sideffects. for example it reduced the variety of crops that we eat, since it focused on creating just high-yielding cultivars. The Big 4 being : wheat, corn, rice, and soybeans.

And perhaps the biggest failure of the green revolution is that it faced huge transportation problems. they had the food to distribute but they could not distribute al the food before it went bad.

I'd say the world is not overpopulated, its jsut that we have not developed a system that can efficiently bypass the political system and deliver the food we have to those who needs it.

[/end rant]

Good post Megil..

I tend to think the world will never be over populated. Why?

Man,(human beings) from the beginning of creation (or whenever they evolved to you non-creation types) has learned and adapted to the situations and problems of the world. If what I said is true, by the time we have "crisis" trust me, their will be a billions brains working towards the same goal of... What do we do now!? Man will over-come

In fact, the world is the least of our worry's, before theres over population we are going to kill each other off. Mans Downfall. IMO