Open Question: Please help me to know more on dubai customs law..?

Please through some light on import,export,transfer,transit and how is is governed through dubai customs law..It their any web sites or books that can give us the basis procudeures,law that controls the import and export operations.. for any helpful suggestion will get 10 points more

Open Question: so atheists, the universe created itself?

The World Runs on basic laws... Logic,Mathematics,Science,Abso­lute Moral Laws,Laws of Nature.These laws are immaterial,unchanging,universa­l...we cannot account for these laws if the world were material in nature! But it's not! Therefore Only in a universe governed by (A God) can Those laws be possible! And the last time I checked they do! So God Exists! And its up to you....to find the true God! more

Open Question: What happened to the days when we could just pull out the ol' "Racist, Bigot, Homophobe card?

It seems that the all powerful R-B-H card is just getting tired, well worn, and actually ignored. Charles Krauthammer put this out today, and it is just scary. C&P Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward people who aren't like them." That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking. -- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president. -- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism. -- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia. -- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia. Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes? Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities -- often lopsided majorities -- oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a mosque near Ground Zero. What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument more

Open Question: Professional organizations create codes of ethics to govern their members is it true or false?

in introduction to law and ethics is Professional organizations create codes of ethics to govern their members true or false more

Open Question: Is liberalism under siege an ugly sight?

As Charles Krauthammer so eloquently points out here: Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" -- this part is less remembered -- "antipathy toward people who aren't like them." That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking. -- Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president. -- Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism. -- Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia. -- Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia. Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes? Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities -- often lopsided majorities -- oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, Obamacare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a mosque near Ground Zero. What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that preempts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument. The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card. When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president's proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms. Then came Arizona and S.B. 1070. It seems impossible for the left to believe that people of good will could hold that: (a) illegal immigration should be illegal, (b) the federal government should not hold border enforcement hostage to comprehensive reform, i.e., amnesty, (c) every country has the right to determine the composition of its immigrant population. As for Proposition 8, is it so hard to see why people might believe that a single judge overturning the will of 7 million voters is an affront to democracy? And that seeing merit in retaining the structure of the most ancient and fundamental of all social institutions is something other than an alleged hatred of gays -- particularly since the opposite-gender requirement has characterized virtually every society in all the millennia until just a few years ago? And now the mosque near Ground Zero. The intelligentsia is near unanimous that the only possible grounds for opposition is bigotry toward Muslims. This smug attribution of bigotry to two-thirds of the population hinges on the insistence on a complete lack of connection between Islam and radical Islam, a proposition that dovetails perfectly with the Obama administration's pretense that we are at war with nothing more than "violent extremists" of inscrutable motive and indiscernible belief. Those who reject this as both ridiculous and politically correct (an admitted redundancy) are declared Islamophobes, the ad hominem du jour. It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms). Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" -- blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims -- a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it succinctly, "just downright mean"? The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti more

Open Question: New York Law Regarding Contest Rules Changing Mid-Contest w/o Notification?

If you were entered in a contest, whose "terms and agreements" contract said LAW: You agree that these terms and the relationship between you and [insert name] shall be governed by the laws of the United States and the State of New York. But when you initially signed up for the contest, they had one set of conditions that you agreed to. Then in the middle of the contest w/o notifying you they changed the rules so that if you did something you were disqualified (this disqualification clause was not in the Terms and Conditions that you agreed to). So when the contest ended and you would have won by the old terms and conditions, they say you are DQd because you broke the rules. They never made any notification to the participants that agreed to the old set of rules that they changed the rules. but they have this in their rules: By submitting an entry to the [insert name here], you are agreeing to be bound by the following legal terms, which may be updated if necessary to clarify rules or protect the integrity of the Event. Can anyone clarify this situation for me? more

Open Question: Does anyone know if there are laws regarding a medical consent form and where I can find them?

I'm doing a project in my class on the importance of signing a medical consent form and I need some legal information as to where I can find the laws that govern the medical consent form. So any and all help will be appreciated, I checked the attorney generals site and couldn't find anything. more

Open Question: Is it Good Idea to Turn Over CA Debt Crisis to ANOTHER Newbie?

If a candidate has never registered to vote, No knowledge of laws, No experience governing, wants wealthiest to pay LESS tax: should we pick that one as next governor? One candidate is spending MILLIONS, $108 million of her own money, to persuade Californians she is best choice for governor, even though she has never held any elected office. The current governor: also Republican, also newbie got us into this mess. His 'solution' is cut income to disabled Californians 3 times, took $5 Billion from education and Raising everyone's car registration fee, but still huge debt. Do you think she can: Fix the deficit??? Create jobs? Improve schools from 49th place (out of 50 states)? Should we pick the newbie Republican Meg Whitman for governor? Why? more

Resolved Question: Is there an age limit on IVF in the US?

I'm just curious. I'm not sure if these sorts of things are governed by law, medical ethics or something else. more

Open Question: If Statutory law conflicts with the common law, which law will govern?

 more

Open Question: Is THIS how dems "govern"? By giving power to bureaucrats to destroy the economy? Are they THAT cowardly?

President Obama's EPA is already well down the path to regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, something the act was not designed to do. It has a problem, however, because shoehorning greenhouse gases into that 40-year-old law would force churches, schools, warehouses, commercial kitchens and other sources to obtain costly and time-consuming permits. It would grind the economy to a halt, and the likely backlash would doom the whole scheme. The EPA, determined to move forward anyway, is attempting to rewrite the Clean Air Act administratively via a "tailoring rule," which would reduce the number of regulated sources. The problem with that approach? It's illegal. The EPA has no authority to rewrite the law. To pull it off, the EPA needs every state with a State Implementation Plan to rewrite all of its statutory thresholds as well. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/25/texas-fights-global-warming-power-grab/?page=1 more

Resolved Question: Can I sue or get my parents locked up for getting me genitally mutilated (circumcised)?

How is strapping someone to a table and forcibly and brutally cutting off parts of their penis without the victim's consent still legal? Forced circumcision is clearly in violation of the human rights declaration under article 5. Article 5: No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Circumcision being legal is in violation of the human rights declaration under articles: 1, 2, 6, and 7 because it is discriminating against young boys and denying them their rights as humans. Article 1: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. Article 2: Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty. Article 6: Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law. Article 7: All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination. Circumcision is also clearly a form of child abuse, if beating your child is child abuse. Circumcision certainly is. Personal details: I am a 16 year old male (I'm not sure what relevance my age has to this but it implies I haven't received as many years of chaffing and constant extra desensitization as an adult circumcised male will have). My circumcision was not done for medical needs, or potential medical benefits (there are none lol). It was done purely out of cultural/religious "reasons" coming from my dad's side. Could I please have some advice on how to pursue legal action against my parents for having me forcibly mutilated? Note: If you are not aware of the disadvantages of circumcision, do not acknowledge it is a violation of a babies rights, and are not aware of the fact circumcision provides no medical benefits please do not answer my question. Also, I don't want to hear about how you're a circumcised male and perfectly happy with your mutilated piece of chaffed meat. I am not interested in propaganda designed to get more parents to mutilated their children for no reason other than the sick sadistic happiness you get from knowing hundreds of millions males are mutilated beyond repair. Thank you.I asked this question on Law and Ethics but did not receive any satisfactory answers. I am hoping people in Men's health will have more knowledge on the subject to be able to speculate on the legality.Also, I live (and was born) in the UK. I'm not sure what legal implications that has.My parents basicly just did it "to look like daddy" and because his whole side of the family had it done. They didn't need anyone to deceive them into doing so. Except my mum, it was my dads idea obviously.My motives for suing my parents are not your business. But I will tell you my motives are not because I need money, I want my parents to have to pay for what they've done. Litteraly.*literallyThank you Herp Derp, It does take years to grow back, and doesn't grow back the nerve endings lost in circumcision. It also doesn't grow back the frenulum, etc. more

Resolved Question: How interesting would it be if?

Everytime we die we reincarnate. And everytime we reincarnate we move into a higher dimension. Like right now, I believe we are in the 3rd dimension. What if before we were in the 2nd dimension, and the next dimension would be a 4th dimension world One that would be governed by much different Laws then the one we live in. Like the Natural Law in the 4th dimension could be that " Nothing CAN come from something, and something CAN come from nothing" more

Resolved Question: Can you believe what Obama is now doing Obama Hauls Arizona Before the UN Human Rights Council?

Apparently Barack Obama is not content to make a federal case out of his immigration feud with Arizona; he just made it an international one. The president’s first-ever report on U.S. human rights to the UN Human Rights Council contains a rich vein of offensive material. So far, one aspect has not been reported: our petty president used the situation to bash Arizona’s immigration law — and possibly transfer jurisdiction over the law from Arizona to the UN. Throughout the report, which sounds like an Obama campaign speech, the president discusses “the original flaw” of the U.S. Constitution, America’s tolerance for slavery, and his version of our long and despicable history of discriminating against and oppressing minorities, women, homosexuals, and the handicapped. After each complaint, he addresses how he is delivering us from ourselves, patting himself on the back for such initiatives as ending “torture,” promoting Affirmative Action, and passing health care legislation. In his section on “Values and Immigration,” he praised the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to provide better medical care for detainees and increase “Alternatives To Detention” (e.g., letting them go). Then he turned to the one state that has had the temerity to stand in his way of fundamentally transforming the American electorate: A recent Arizona law, S.B. 1070, has generated significant attention and debate at home and around the world. The issue is being addressed in a court action that argues that the federal government has the authority to set and enforce immigration law. That action is ongoing; parts of the law are currently enjoined. On Obama’s command, Attorney General Eric Holder has sued the State of Arizona for passing a law that he criticized without reading, and which merely upholds federal law. (He gave sanctuary cities a pass.) He now threatens an additional lawsuit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio for “racial profiling” when arresting illegal immigrants near the Mexican border. Obama’s turns his skirmish with Jan Brewer from a states rights dispute into an international human rights cause. It also places Arizona’s law in the hands of the United Nations. The national report is but the first step of the international government’s review process. On November 5, the United States will be examined by a troika of UN bureaucrats from France, Japan, and Cameroon (an oppressive nation which is a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference). This trio will consider three items: Obama’s self-flagellating report, reports written about America by UN tribunals or international governing bodies, and testimony from NGOs with a pronounced anti-American bias. It will also consider “voluntary pledges and commitments made by the State,” such as suspending an Arizona state law. Then the French, Japanese, and Cameroon diplomats will draw up a plan of action for the United States to implement. Nations are re-examined every four years. The Human Rights Council looks for voluntary compliance. However, its website asserts, “The Human Rights Council will decide on the measures it would need to take in case of persistent non-cooperation by a State with the” World Body. When the Left cannot win at the ballot box (virtually every time), it overrules the people in the courts. Now that Obama is not sure he can prevail in the courts, he has overruled the American people by hauling Arizona and the two-thirds of Americans who support its law before the United Nations. http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/obama-hauls-arizona-before-the-un-human-rights-council/ Obama has just done something that is totally unprecedented by an American President, and which should be condemned by every American. This President has attacked his own country. That is treason more

Open Question: Religion and the Law?

In nearly any religion, even some of the supposed, free religions and natural ones. God or gods, create civil laws for mankind. Though this could be seen as man laying out his own moral guidelines for the direct community, it also seems like a very trivial deeds, for a universal creator and keeper to perform. Such as the ten Commandments, they seem less like divine will and laws, and more like Civil Court laws. As i said, i can see how it may have been man, laying out the laws for the community, but i doubt a entity which formed all that is, would bother creating a handful of laws, to govern an entire species. Do not Steal? Why would a god\God make this law up? Seems like the duty of a peace-keeper, not the creator of heaven and earth. How does God know, what actions qualify as stealing and which ones do not? Do not lust after another's wife? I can see how such a thing can cause complications, though i doubt the All-maker would create this law. Would God even know about marriage? Would he even care? I know if i could create gigantic stars, entire planets and species, i wouldn't care about people marrying. It seems like such a trivial matter, when compared to the powers, and duty of a god. Do not worship others or idolise other things? Again, why? Is God that petty, it gets offended when man worships something else? Surely, if there is but one God, then regardless of what name you call it, what image you think it has etc, you are still worshipping exactly the same God. that is how i see it. It seems like an extremely human thing, not a godly quality, humans desire loyalty, why would God demand it, why would he need it or care about it? Keep the Sabbath day Holy? This translates, in my eyes, to worship me. Why would he demand this? Why does God make it his business to dictate, what days a person can or can't do things? Again, seems more of a human thing, rather than a universal creator. Surely a maker would be more interested in seeing how it's wards evolve and live without it's intervention. Not demanding weekly praise, or even daily. Do not Murder? As i said before, good for a law, but would a god or God make up this law? really? Would it need to? Why create death, if you're going to tell your creations not to kill each other? Why make them envious, bitter, jealous etc? Why build them from the foundation of an animal? More of a human law, and less of a divine one in my eyes. I see why such laws were invented, by man. Though i do not see the reason for the existence, if attributed to a god or the God. if i was God, i would be more interested in seeing how my creations and wards acted without my help or laws. For example - Ant farms, watching them can be interesting, seeing how they act alone. When you start interfering it just screws everything up, and drowning them is only amusing for the brief time they remain alive. If anyone could shed any light, as to why these laws are still seen as divine laws by religions, i would very much appreciate it. Thank you more

Voting Question: Can the Neoconservatives explain just how Iraq was Liberated?

First we commit the invasion. Next we cause the deaths of over 100,000 Iraqi civilians, plus the countless thousands that are fleeing their country into the surrounding countries. Then we build military bases in their home, implement martial law, in which a foreign military governs them, Iraqis cannot govern themselves. And then our government/military implements the government it wants and not what the Iraqi people want? Despite all that we claim to be spreading all this goodness and Democracy? Hmmm. Can someone preferably a Neocon, explain just how the Iraqi situation is any better than it was under Saddam? Hell at least under Saddam the country was some what, stable, now corruption and instability wreaks havoc on the nation.Cactus Jack -- As usual you forgot our history with Saddam and you forget the fact that, we gave him the capacity to be a murderer. When he was killing Iranians with OUR chemical weapons which was ILLEGAL the world DID nothing.Last time a checked in order to be "Liberated" you have to be free, not ruled by a foreign military under martial law. more

Resolved Question: 1972 US Gay Rights coalition demands "Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent". Still want that?

ALL C&P: In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations held its first convention in Chicago and drafted the controversial Gay Rights Platform. 7. Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent. http://www.civilrightsteaching.org/Handouts/WhatWeWant.pdf _________________________ Further sources to confirm authenticity: http://www.civilrightsteaching.org/ http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-dustup1aug01,0,1754615.storyrichter - What do you supposed they demanded on a Federal level then? They don't mention it. more

Voting Question: WORLD HISTORY - 10pts TRUE OR FALSE?

TRUE OR FALSE 1.During the Age of Reason people thought that both the physical world and human society were governed by natural laws. 2. florence Nightingale gained fame as a nurse caring for wounded soldiers during the Franco-Prussian War. 3. Many people left Ireland in the years 1845-1851 because of a famine caused by the failure of the potato crop. 4. During the Industrial Revolution, power-driven machines increasingly took the place of skilled laborers using hand tools. 5. People who believed in laissez-faire capitalism supported government regulation of business. 6. In the 1760s, Great Britain decided to collect more taxes from its American colonies to pay for war debts. 7. the Civil War in the United States is an example of nationalism versus sectionalism. 8. Romanticism and nationalism had almost no influence on the art, music, and literature of the 19th century. 9. The Agrarian Revolution took place before the Industrial Revolution. 10. Before the Industrial Revolution workers worked in large factories where groups of workers did different tasks. 11. In Britain, Unions eventually convinced the government to improve conditions in factories. 12. By the early 20th century the labor union movernment had died out. 13. One of the most important results of the Industrial Revolution is the global economy that exists today more

Resolved Question: If America becomes predominatly Islamic, what will become of our democracy since the Koran won't allow it?

As I have understood the Koran, only mullahs have the right to govern. Women do not have rights not given to her by her husband. And women certainly do not vote. I submit that fear of muslim control of government is not fanatical but logical. If by using our laws, Muslims gain more control and this is what their actions suggest, America will cease to exist as a free country. more

Resolved Question: Where can I find info on laws governing electric products... as an inventor?

I have an idea for a product that may involve electricity... wires and plugs, etc. Where can I find information on requirements for such products. more

Resolved Question: How did Newton use his laws of motion to calculate the velocity of the moon?

I'm after the detailed(mathematical if possible) investigation of how he calculated the motion of the moon by knowing only the distance from the moon to te earth. Or In general, how can I find out the Velocity of the moon just by assuming it follows an circular orbit so that I can use the laws that govern circular motion and the radius and period etc Thanks PS- I'm after a detailed analysis nothing short,I want to get to the heart of it.He did not have the mass of the earth.. more

Resolved Question: What is the current state of affairs of communism?How does west Bengal fits into the picture?

The maoists are still now active forces and very daunting challenge to states law and order authorities.I simply tell them to go to their basics .Ours is a mature demcracy.It is not a county ruled by a military junta or autocratic rulers where peasants and labors would fight a guerilla warfare and root out the despot.Here everything can be solved by discussion.Come to the table,have a tea and a smoke and start discussion.May be some political party is streching their helping arms to you for their own vested interest.That is fishy. Now some hard facts.Marxist government is ruling west bengal for past 33 years .What is now state of affairs.We have only 3 percent of Indias landmass.But the population is around 8 percent of total India.We are the third highest contributor of the nations GDP .We are sorry.We should have been first. We are the number one rice producing state of india.55000 Sq kilometer of land is arable.We produce more than 60 percent of india,s jute.Agriculture is going in great guns.We are self sufficient in foodgrain production.That does not mean that if we take a few hector of land for industry,our foodgrain production would fall drastically within hours.Arousing the emotional side of the people is very easy.Buy we dont feed people with emotional capsules.We know people can not be befooled for long.As far we know,no one was granted petent heresofar for the love to our motherland and our folks. 57West bengal is still now a service sector oriented economy.57 percent of the state NDP comes from service sector.Per capita income has increased to more and 30000 per capita which is more than national average.We have 110 km of road per 100 sq kilometer area.Higher than national average of 75.Just think about other states.we are sorry. We have the most updated power producing infrustucture .It is best in the country according to Gartner-Machensi report.Still we scream about power shortage.Just think about other states.This is inspite of geographical shortcomings of our state which does not have too many ports and devoid of mineral oil and iron.We are sorry. The health and social index is rising steadily.However,industries are needed to produce more jobs.Even in modern economics the theory of alternative value points to that way.Please dont take it emotionally.A state can be governed by intelligence,prudence and decisive action,not by emotion. Now this is the state of affairs.Dont forget about distribution of land to small peasants and first introduction of panchayti structure for decentralization of power. So ,whats the fuss about?This is the second part.Yahoo answers have a bar of 5000.So I devided the question in two parts.Thanks. more

Open Question: Long-term disability insurance benefits law in Canada?

My dad suffered from a major stroke when he was 35. That was 23 years ago and, because of the insurance company's policy, the benefits that he gets now reflect his non-adjusted for inflation salary of 1987. This regulation was likely designed with older people in mind. Is there a law that governs whether long-term disability recipients receive inflation-adjusted benefits in Canada, or does it solely depend on the insurance company's policy? Is it likely that a new bill regulating inflation-adjusted insurance benefits can be passed?Sam D. that has to be the worst non-spam answer ever posted on this website. more

Resolved Question: Would Ronald Reagan be "too liberal" for today's Republicans?

Today's Republican Party is dominated by right wing extremists. I mean, when they start voting out people like Utah's Robert Bennett, there is a problem. I hear right wingers calling Senator Richard Lugar, of Indiana, a "Liberal." While they may do well this year do to the "kick the bums out" attitude, plus the low voter turn out in off year elections, the far right is going to destroy the Republican Party. Right wingers are badly mistaking Obama's drop in approval with added support for them. The number of people voting this November will be around 35% of the number that voted in 2008. The Republicans have become to extreme that Ronald Reagan, a man they deify, would be seen as "too liberal," for them. 1-Reagan cut taxes but he also RAISED them in 1983. In fact, as a percentage of the GDP it remains the largest tax increase in history. 2-Reagan believed in negotiating with our enemies. How many times did he meet with Gorby? 3-Reagan as California governor signed into law the most liberal abortion choice law in history up until that time in1970. 4-Reagan was the first to give AMNESTY to illegals. With the stroke of a pen he gave citizenship to 1.3 million illegals living in the USA. It was supposed to solve the problem. 5-In spite of all the talk, Reagan never even tried to cut government spending. All but two of the budgets that he submitted to Congress proposed MORE spending than what Congress sent back to him to sign. 6-While Reagan paid lip service to them, he really did not care for the religious right. 7-Most of all, Reagan did not hate people like the Limbaugh's, Beck, and Hannity, do. He was about civility. 8-I have serious doubts Reagan would have went to war in Iraq as a response to 911. I sense that a lot of people who dieify Reagan really have no idea what he was all about. I can never vote Republican, and I have in the past, because they are simply too extreme. I miss Republican's like Gerald Ford, Nelson Rockefeller, Lowell Weicher, even Bob Dole. These were men who would compromise for the sake of the country. The way Republicans do business now makes it impossible to govern. If they get the majority this year government will come to a stand still. As a result, when we get another Republican president, the Democrats will do the same thing. Republican's were so upset how the Democrats hated Bush. It is amazing that they failed to realize this was the result of their rabies like hatred of Bill Clinton. At some point this has to stop for the sake of America. The way the right is acting to wards Obama only assures the next Republican president not being able to govern. Yes, Ronald Reagan would be seen as "too liberal" for today's Republican's.Uh Xavier, Nice dodge of the issue. If a Republican today came out with the kinds of positions Reagan took they would be primaried out of their job. .Notice how these righties can ot answer my points. They can only call me names like "Clueless lefty." When they do not have Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity, around they are weak.Justgitti, Every year the White House submits their proposed budget to Congress. Not ONE Reagan budget proposed less spending than what Congress sent back to hom to sign. As for Bush in 207 to 2009. The Democrats did not have large enough numbers to overide his veto pen. Why did Bush sign those budgets? more

Resolved Question: Is Israel more of a rogue state than Iran?

From http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-mystery-of-israels-secret-uranium-bomb-421960.html Israel never signed the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (even North Korea signed up to that allowing IAEA inspectors into the country). Neither the US nor Israel signed the Third Protocol of the Geneva Conventions (which bans the use of White Phosphorous on civilians) which is why, when Israel used White Phosphorous in Gaza, it was using it "legally" in the sense it wasn't breaking any law that applied to Israel since they never signed up to be governed by that law anyway. Please bear this in mind when you hear Israeli spokespersons deny the Israeli Army have done anything wrong. On top of that, it seems Israel is already using nuclear weapons in it's attacks "According to Dr Chris Busby, the British Scientific Secretary of the European Committee on Radiation Risk, two soil samples thrown up by Israeli heavy or guided bombs showed "elevated radiation signatures". Both have been forwarded for further examination to the Harwell laboratory in Oxfordshire for mass spectrometry - used by the Ministry of Defence - which has confirmed the concentration of uranium isotopes in the samples." If those nations with nuclear weapons refrained from using them, they might be able to claim they were acting responsibly and feel more free to criticise other nations they suspected of seeking their own nuclear weapons. Of all nations, Israel should understand the concept of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" and not be surprised if other nations feel they have a right to repatriate some radiation to Israel's tiny country.Jesus said "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Does this mean the Israelis wouldn't complain if they found radioactive bomb craters on Israeli soil? What if White Phosphorous shells started raining down in the illegal settlements? I suppose they wouldn't complain because it's all legal. more

Voting Question: does florida law require an 8 year old girl to have her own bed or can she share one with her mother?

The mother decided to move in with grandma and her husband (who has been in jail for drugs). The 3 adults and 8 year old live in a 2 bedroom duplex. Mother and girl must share a bed. Is there a law governing this arrangement?To Pat who answered my question; If calling me a moron is your answer, I think you should take a look in the mirror. This question involves a child who had been placed with guardians because mother abandon her using excuse she could not afford to take care of the child. Mother claimed she was on her feet and was prepared now to support child. Within 24 hours of regaining custody, she had to move to her mothers house because she suddeny realized she could not afford to care for child. Again the child suffers because mother can't afford her own place or child care. Also the grandmother and her husband have a history of domestic violence as well as a criminal record for drugs. Sorry Pat if you don't believe there must be some law overseeing this child's welfare. more

Voting Question: What would be considered fair credit reporting?

Should companies and agencies who base how much they are going to charge you be required to report your payment history to the credit bureaus? I ask because I just found out that my auto insurance company can raise my premium based on my credit score, but I have a perfect payment history. I think that if they are going to 'take' info from the credit agencies they should also be required to 'give' info to the credit company. Are there any laws that govern this? Wouldn't this be considered fair credit reporting?If I have and accident and file a claim or if I am driving unsafely and get a ticket, my premiums go up. I am being penalized for something I did. It is discriminating to charge me for something that some profile statistics say that I MAY do - especially when documented history clearly contradicts the profile. I pay my premiums a month in advance. If I pay 6 months in advance, I don't get a reduction of premium nor do I get paid interest for my insurance company holding my money for 6 months - so why should I get charged a fee?And if I DO get into an accident -it doesn't matter that I have been paying for insurance for 18 years and have never filed a claim - the insurance company doesn't even pay the whole thing...I still have to pay $500 of the damage.What a racket! Blood sucking low lifes. more

Resolved Question: Is the NY Mosque just a stones throw away from the gay and lesbian center?

If we tolerate intolerance, how many rights will we give up. How do you think Muslims will treat the LBGT community? Republicans and Muslims are working together on a new world order. That means social rules and laws will govern our bodies. They stone and kill homosexuals and mutilate women. more

Resolved Question: HOME WORK HELP!!!JOHN LOCKE?

HOME WORK HELP!!!JOHN LOCKE? ok i need to find the meaning of these in my own words "the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which treats everyone equally...[B]eing equal and independant,no one ought to harm another in his life,health or possessions". "we have reason to conclude that all peaceful beginnings of government have been laid in the consent of the people". "the old [traditions] are apt to lead men into mistakes, as this [idea] of [fatherly] powers's probably has done,which seems so [eager] to place the power of parents over their children wholly in the father,as if mother has no share in it. where as if we consult reason ot [the bible], we shall find she has an equal title. "whensoever...the [government] shall...put into the hands of any absolute power over the lives,liberties, and estates of the people, by this breach of trust they forfeit the power [of] the people...who have a right to resume their original liberty,and by the Establishment of the new [government] provide for their own safty and security" PLEASE HELP FINALE EXAM AND I MUST ACE IT !!! PLEASE 10 PTS more

Resolved Question: Why are Christians Rebellious against their God?

“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which god has established. The authorities that exist have been established by god. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what god has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he shall commend you. For he is god’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is god’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. There fore it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are god’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes, if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.” Clearly it is the job of Christians to obey the laws, and the laws of this country clearly state that abortion is legal. So too should Christians respect and honor that law. God commands them to NOT disobey, which entails attempting to get the law overturned. If god wanted abortion to be illegal he wouldn’t have appointed authorities to make it legal. It is Romans 13: 1-713And they send unto him certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words. 14And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not? 15Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it. 16And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar's. 17And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him. (Mark 12) more

Resolved Question: who make law & rule to govern the seas that donot fallin boundaries of anyone country?

 more

Resolved Question: should first cousin marriage be considered incest?

This is not a racist statment at all it is a comment on FACT! Here in the uk asian community marriages by first cousins are causing problems for their offspring. Therefore shouldn't these unions be governed by incest laws?http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-68/episode-1tr*v lol! more

Resolved Question: marriage registration of a foreign national with indian citizen in india?

My usa borned nephew whose mother father was borned in india and married in india later become citizen of USA, has been married to a indian citizen bride as per Hindu customes in gorakhpur,up india on 14th april 2010, we filed the papers for registration of marriage under HINDU MArriage ACt. The sub registrar of marriage, Gorakhpur says he will regiter the marriage only if USA Goverenment office/counselar usa embassey certify the details of bride groom ( my nephew). we approached the usa embassey and usa embassey delhi issued a notarized statement from the U.S. citizen party to the marriage, affirming that the citizen is free to marry, and his other details which often is accepted in lieu of a governmental statement. The sub registrar is not accepting this notorized statement from usa citizen duly notorized by authorised signatory. the rules regarding usa citizen marriage are given on this web site where it is stated that : "This office occasionally receives requests to provide "No Objection" letters concerning a person's intent to marry in India. U.S. consular officers are expressly forbidden from making an official statement regarding a person's eligibility to be married. Please find below the relevant excerpts from the U.S. Government regulations that govern what services a U.S. consular officer can and cannot provide. The complete regulations are available online at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86802.pdf" " 7 FAM 1453.2 What Consular Officers Can't Do c. You cannot make any official certification about the status or eligibility to marry of persons residing in the United States who propose to be married abroad, or about the laws of the United States or of any of the fifty States or Territories about eligibility for marriage or the solemnization of a marriage. 7 FAM 1455.1 Foreign Countries' Requirements a. Some countries require persons who wish to marry to provide written proof issued by governmental authority, that there is no legal impediment to the marriage. No such document, or governmental authority to issue such document, exists in the United States. b. In consular districts with such requirements, a notarized statement from the U.S. citizen party to the marriage, affirming that the citizen is free to marry, often is accepted in lieu of a governmental statement." pl. suggest how to get this marriage registered more

Voting Question: what are atheist views on the laws of the universe??....?

scientist have revealed that the universe is governed under these precise settings, and that if either of these laws were to be even slightly put of balance, everything in it would cease to exist... of no particular religion, just wondering bout your views if you so kindly share...really creation crusher???.....the billions of times the universe has expanded and collapsed???......please give me the link to whatever site it is you got that from, I would love to discover how they found out the universe had existed before and then collapsed...... more

Voting Question: Top shelf pornography in newsagents?

I wondered whether anyone could tell me what guidelines and/or laws there are governing the display of pornographic magazines and dvds in newsagents/convenience stores. I'm used to seeing the bare boobs and the mags such as Nuts and Zoo on display as well as the softer mags on the top shelf and they don't bother me. However, i just nipped up to the off licence 3 doors away and spotted a magazine with an attached dvd called "An*l Student" right above the confectionary etc. It's a shop that children go in a lot as it's on the school route and i'd prefer mine to stay unaware of certain things until they're a lot older. more

Voting Question: Is it abuse if my adoptive stepfather?

emotionally scarred me? he's been doing it forever. and when my mom has the guts, she agrees with me. although he has physically harmed me, there are no marks or scars and my family would be too chicken to be witnesses. he has emotionally broken me down with repeated namecalling and taunting. i tried taking diet drugs and made myself threw up because he always called me fat. i got into real drugs because it was too hard to deal with his namecalling. there are things that are offlimits with my bio dad that he brings up, and blames my hatred for him(stepdad)on my bio father. i don't hate my bio dad half as much as i hate him for ruining my self esteem. i live in pittsburgh. are there state laws governing the definition of emotional abuse? if so, what are they?my mom doesn't care, she loves him and will do nothing to hurt him as long as shes happy. as soon as he hurts her shes on my side. but i never know when that will happen. shes not willing to do anything, he means more to me than her for sure. she even joins in on namecalling sometimes. i mean i know i screw up, im still a kid and by no means perfect. but it doesn't give you the right to ruin my self esteem. i'm 17 ill be 18 in march. can i sue them for emotional distress when i'm 18? is it worth it? more

Resolved Question: How dangerous are tattoos?

Did you know tattoos are the #1 cause of Hepatitis C? When you look at you slacker tattoo artist, would you trust him to properly sterilize the equipment? Did you know that the American Red Cross, desperate for blood, will not accept your blood if you have had a tattoo in the last year? Did you know that you can not receive a MRI Scan if you have a tattoo? Read on: "You probably know that a body tattoo is injected into the skin by using a machine with a sharp needle and ink. What you probably don't realize, is that a tattooing machine can pierce the skin as many as 3,000 times a minute. Each one of these holes can be as deep as 1/16 of an inch. These open wounds scab over, but they can still cause health problems... and maybe even death. Before you even consider injected in this fashion, you need to know the deadly dangers of body tattoos. As far as tattoo parlors are concerned, it's the responsibility of the operator to make sure his/her equipment and shop are clean and sanitary. It's also their responsibility to use hygienic procedures. Tattoo parlors are governed by state and local laws to do so. But, these laws aren't always strictly enforced. So, no matter if you have your neighbor give you a tattoo in his basement, or you visit a legitimate tattoo parlor, your new body marking can be a deadly danger. While some tattoo parlors do pay strict attention to sanitation, they are in the minority... One of the most common health problems with body tattoos is allergic reactions to the ink. Body tattoos can also cause skin infections and chronic skin ailments. Examples of recurring skin ailments include psoriasis and dermatitis. Body tattoos can also cause tumors which may be benign, or even malignant. If these deadly dangers don't make you think twice about getting a tattoo, then consider the fact that getting a body tattoo puts you at the risk of contracting tetanus, HIV, AIDS, Hepatitis B and C, and even Syphilis. Hepatitis C alone claims more than 10,000 lives every year! The results of research performed by Dr. Bob Haley and Dr. Paul Fischer of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School shows that getting body tattoos at parlors may well be the "number one distributor of Hepatitis C." The doctors found that getting tattoos at an establishment "accounted for more than twice as many Hepatitis C infections as injection-drug use." The research also shows that people who get a body tattoo in a parlor are "nine times more likely to get Hepatitis C" because of infected needles and unsanitary conditions. This is the reason that people who get a body tattoo aren't allowed to donate blood to the American Red Cross for an entire year. Medical experts recommend that anyone who gets a tattoo get tested for Hepatitis shortly afterwards. And finally, if you still aren't convinced about the deadly dangers of body tattoos, think about this: the ink that's injected in your skin contains metal filaments. If you need to have an MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), these bits of metal can cause you to feel a burning pain during the test. Some hospitals and testing locations refuse to do an MRI on people who have body tattoos. That means, if you have a tattoo, and your doctor recommends an MRI, you may not be able to have this life-saving test performed." http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1385121 more

Voting Question: LGBT folks: A question thats a matter of life and death:?

I assume you've heard of the Islamic SHARIA LAW. This is the law that governs anyone who professes the religion "of peace", Islam. My question is this: How many of you advocate or promote the idea of Sharia Law in America?? The reason I ask is because so many liberals and left-wingers side with muslims, some because they think that by appeasing them they won't get their neighborhoods blown up or thrown into a riot, and some because they think that whatever the ACLU does surely must be the right thing to do, and social justice has a strangle-hold on America right now, just as political correctness does. Unfortunately, both appeasing radical muslims AND political correctness will end up getting us all killed; but I digress: As gays, bisexuals, transgenders, etc, what do you think the end-result would be if we were to allow sharia law in America. Think its not possible? A judge in New Jersey just heard a case of a vicious rape of a muslim woman by her husband. The Judge decided that because the husband was Islamic and is governed by Sharia Law where he comes from, he has every right to force his wife to have sex with him, quote, "even if its on the hump of a camel". She must sacrifice herself to sexual intercourse and whatever else he desires (sexually) regardless of her state of mind, her physical condition, or any circumstance. In short, she is a total and absolute sexual slave, period. So think again if you believe groups like the ACLU are looking out for any person's best interest in America. Why should YOU care about this? Well, because Sharia Law says much, much more than just to subject women to a life worse than any dog in america: Sharia ALSO HAS SOME NICE PLANS FOR YOU FOLKS, LIKE THESE: Are you a lesbian? You will be stripped, buried to your waist, head covered with a white sheet, and then stoned to death. Your own family MUST participate in the stoning, including any children you might have from age 3 and up. Takes all the fun out of "getting stoned", ya know?? Are you a gay man? Oh goodie: you will be stripped and hanged by the neck until dead, not for stealing or for murder, but only for your sexual preferences. "Hang 'em High" isn't just a movie title anymore. Are you safe because you are bisexual or transgendered? Hardly. Men will still be hung and women will still be stoned, but the only difference is that you will be humiliated by gang-rape before-hand. Think of it as a going-away orgy of sorts. If you ever listened to one piece of common sense in your whole life, PLEASE, TO MY FRIENDS ON THE LEFT, listen to this: We have a huge problem right now in America that extends far beyond the economy or our differences in whats moral: the truth is that we have muslim and other groups in America who hate this Country and want to bring us DOWN. Groups like ISNA, CAIR and others are unindicted co-conspirators in funding of HAMAS AND HEZBOLLAH. These muslim groups are here in America to divide us and turn us into an Islamic Nation. They are working our own laws and freedoms/rights against us ALL. Do not think that they will somehow be on your side because they HATE YOU MOST OF ALL: YOU ARE A DISGRACE TO ALLAH. Do you honestly think that abortion clinics will still be operating? There WON'T BE ANY ABORTIONS, AT ALL....NOT EVEN FOR RAPE OR INCEST. And you feminists out there: Do you honestly think you will be making demand after demand? You'll be lucky if you're allowed to speak AT ALL. You will be treated like a vaginaa because thats all they believe that you are: a walking sexual organ. You whine and complain about being equal with men, but you'll be lucky if you're equal to a dog if not lower. The only reason muslim women in America don't experience these things IS BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN AMERICA., but if America is gone, so are all the rights and freedoms we have. Let a feminist speak and her tongue will be cut out of her mouth. Even with our laws in America we still have over 200 BEHEADINGS OF MUSLIM WOMEN IN THE PAST 22 MONTHS BY MUSLIM HUSBANDS, oh...i correct myself - one was run over by her muslim husband in the car, over and over again until she bled to death on the street. STOP ALLOWING GROUPS LIKE THE ACLU TO CATER TO THESE MUSLIM GROUPS. STOP ALLOWING PEOPLE TO GET VOTED INTO OFFICE WHEN THEY ARE ADVOCATES OF SHARIA LAW!! ELENA KAGAN IS AN ADVOCATE OF IT AND NOW WE HAVE HER ON THE SUPREME COURT FOR GODS SAKE. WAKE UP PEOPLE. So again, my question is this: how many of you promote or advocate muslim groups who follow Sharia Law??? If you do, as an LGBT, WHY do you??EDIT: FIRST, THANKS TO ALL WHO ANSWERED. Second, it may be alot to read, but its important for my gay friends to understand that when you go along with those who advocate and appease and brown-nose, quite frankly - supporters of Islamic Sharia Law (AND YES KAGAN IS AN ADVOCATE OF IT), then you are literally shooting yourselves in the foot and making for dangerous circumstances. DO NOT THINK that because you have a large gay lobby that you would be immune when some of these crazy far-left ideals come to reality. Time to think about it with some common sense, or just pretend life is all rosey and fine......your choice. more

Resolved Question: Does quantum theory suggest that god is evil/disorderly?

Quantum theory suggests that on the sub atomic level, there are random happenings not governed by any law. Is this true? Since a god with an equal opponent suggests that anything could happen in this world. Ie chaotic universe. Is the quantum theory applicable with a lawful, all good all powerful God? more

Resolved Question: If moral laws are good then are societal laws incomplete unless there is a governing force in the universe?

If there is a law against murder then murderers are punished by society. If murderers were unpunished by society then peoples moral rights would not be protected. Therefore moral law is good and necessary. However, if lying is also bad because it can also hurt others, similar to how killing hurts others, then how come there is not a law against lying? Could it be because a law against lying is to hard to enforce in general? Thus, without a governing force in the universe that goes beyond our limited capabilities to enforce the law there would be no justice for the many injustices committed against others that can not be protected by societal law. Therefore societal laws are incomplete. Thus there is needed a governing force in the universe that we call God that enforces law beyond the limits of time and space, beyond the limits of life and death. more

Resolved Question: Is there such a thing as a ''Selfless'' good deed?

In general people have stated I am a Good person. Yet, I have no reason why this is true. Personally, I could give a rats a** on what they think of me. I don't remember doing anything that has made me feel good or bad about myself. In all I honestly don't get the good and bad feelings either, as everything is done according to the laws that govern us. This may be the reason, I am having problems this concept no good deed. I have had those explain as good as when you feel warm or happy, but when I am "happy" I find myself not making logical decisions, so i stay away from happiness as well as sadness. Others hit the point, the feeling I get from doing something logical or when the motive of keeping myself logical is good. If so, this causes an issue, that sometime the logical thing to do makes people upset. Question: "Do I look Fat in this?" Logical response: "Compared to what?" I usually get yelled at here (or slapped once or twice) before I can finished " Fat is a relative term, Compared to a stick you are fat, compared to a whale you are not. " If they have not stopped be before, i get slapped about now. Please do not answer with the ignorant statement. "I can't do it so you can't either." or anything around this, please be logical about your answer. Thank you.Apologies about the answers so far, Not sure what you mean by "Feeling Good" As my awareness of "Good" is currently equal to "Bad" more

Resolved Question: If Comprehensive Immigration Reform is good for US workers and honest employers, why do some not want reform?

Comprehensive immigration reform would ensure that all workers are here legally, punish unscrupulous employers who undercut their honest competitors, and restore fairness to the labor market, but some people don't want this reform, why is that? http://americasvoiceonline.org/facts/facts-content/workers Comprehensive immigration reform would ensure that all workers are here legally, punish unscrupulous employers who undercut their honest competitors, and restore fairness to the labor market. **Legalization Would Level the Playing Field for Workers and Honest Employers Most undocumented immigrants in this country are working outside the system in a shadow economy that artificially depresses wages, allows unscrupulous employers to cheat the system, and exposes workers to abuse and labor violations. One of the most horrific examples of this underground system is the Agriprocessors meatpacking plant: after the plant was raided in 2008, the public discovered that the undocumented workers employed there had been exploited by low wages, health and safety violations, and even physical abuse. Under a legalization program, undocumented workers would be made legal and subject to all wage and labor laws that govern the workplace. This would result in improved wages and labor standards for all workers. **Legalization Would Lift the Wages of All Workers According to a report released in December 2009 by the Center for American Progress and the Immigration Policy Center, comprehensive immigration reform that includes a legalization program would increase the real wages of less-skilled legalized workers by $4,405 per year. Higher-skilled workers would see a yearly wage increase of $6,185 per year. •These increased wages would result in increased consumer spending which would support 750,000 to 900,000 jobs in the U.S. •This report found that the alternative to comprehensive immigration reform, mass deportation, would result in widespread job loss. more

Resolved Question: Another Yahoo idiocy: "Oops, we can't find you!"?

This is driving me NUTS! I live in country A, and have Yahoo set for U.S. content (which I want, but I did NOT choose the U.S. as my place of residence when I signed up). Every time I visit country B (which I do often), and try to log into my mail, I get the following: "Oops, we can't find you! Tell us your location. Help make your Yahoo! Mail more relevant. Resident of the United States I am on vacation and currently in country B. I'm returning to the U.S in the very near future. My permanent home is in the United States. I am in the United States Resident of country B I am a permanent resident of country B By clicking below, I agree to the... Terms of Service and Privacy Policy and Mail Terms of Service. These terms and privacy policy are governed by the laws of country B and may be different from those in the country you created your account. I am in country B" Neither choice matches my situation. Is there any way to stop this (I just want it to leave me alone)? I usually get around it by using a proxy in a different country, but that is not always practical. more

Resolved Question: I need someone to look over my history essay... please!?

***I'm doing an essay for school. We have to do it bases on a quote. ("Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana.) We aren't supposed to simply restate the quote. Please look it over and tell me what i should add or fix. if you don't feel like reading the whole thing, please read the last two paragraphs. please. Thanks!!!!*** George Santayana once said, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Although he stated, “…learn from history…”, there have been many instances in the past where not only have they failed to learn from history, they have also chosen to ignore it. History is full of many of the same events, they were just simply executed under different circumstances. Those “circumstances” have been repeated in a number of different aspects such as social, political, and economic. Ultimately, it is important to pay attention to what has happened in history because history has helped us understand the development of our society and how certain events have changed it. The Holocaust caused by Adolf Hitler and the Rwandan Genocide are perfect examples of how history has repeated itself socially. Although, the two were quite different in how they carried out their business. For the most part, the Holocaust was performed largely in secret by military personnel. The Rwandan Genocide, however, was done openly and by civilians. Both events, despite their differences, have striking similarities. The two both had conflicts within their country such as racism that started the Genocide and Holocaust. Their intention was to completely demolish an entire race. The targets were specific groups. In this case, those groups happened to be the Jewish and Rwandan Tutsi. This whole situation could’ve easily been avoided. The minds of those who were responsible for the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide were brainwashed and controlled by hatred, money, ignorance, and pure control. In the end, both took many innocent lives and in massive amounts. Like the Rwandan Genocide and the Holocaust, mistakes were made and history is on the same course of repeating itself once again, but in a more political stand point. There have been warnings early on showing the United States its failure to learn from the fall of Rome. In his own words, Cicero advised, “The budget should be balanced, public debt should be reduced, the treasury should be rebuilt…”. Although, the United States still has time to prevent, what seems like, the inevitable. At this point in time we are headed in the wrong direction. A big portion of our attention is on our military and the current war the United States is in, which is what Rome constantly had on its mind. They were more interested in winning a war than fixing their internal problems. Our government’s debt, at nearly $3 trillion, shows us exactly what Cicero meant in his warning. To sum up what happened to the Roman Empire, Kershner’s First Law states, “When a self-governing people confer upon their government the power to take from some and give to others, the process won’t stop until the last bone of the last taxpayer is picked bare.” Hopefully, the U.S. doesn’t fall into the same footsteps as Rome. By no means is the current Recession we are in today as bad as the Great Depression. Both do share plenty of similarities of how history may be repeating itself, especially in an economic aspect. The crash of the stock market in 1929 had an enormous impact on what caused the Great Depression. Banks started failing, there was rising inflation, and companies that couldn’t afford their employees laid them off in large amounts. Now and then, many people choose to live off of cheap credit. For example, a woman that has an annual income of $30,000 buys a $400,000 house knowing she can’t afford it. Bits and pieces of what happened during the roaring ‘20’s and later in the ‘30’s seem to be all to familiar to those who are affected by the U.S.’s current Recession today. Many say the Great Depression was a horrible event in history to live through, yet it didn’t have a severe enough impact to keep the same things from happening once again. From what George Santayana stated in his quote, it is apparent that history has indeed repeated itself and more than one time at that. Although, you can be taught everything about history, but some choose to simply ignore it. It happened in situations like the Holocaust and the Rwandan Genocide, the fall of Rome and the U.S. government, and last but not least the Great Depression and the current Recession. The only lesson that humans have learned from history is that humans fail to learn from it. more

Resolved Question: Would conservatives prefer business to write all of the laws and to govern the country?

I know they say you can't trust the people we vote into office, and that they're always stealing from business. So that must mean business can be trusted to do what the evil elected officials can't right? We could just appoint congress seats based on the financial success level of the company, among other things, so all the corporate conglomerates don't have to act like someone else is in charge anymore. Am I being too black and white? I didn't want it to be word heavy.Just the radicals in my head Angie. more

Resolved Question: Religiously inclined people - why do you believe what you do?

First off I'm making it clear that I'm not one of these arrogant super-atheists who come on here to wind up religious people, that's not my intention, i just want some serious, sensible answers. I was raised as a catholic but turned my back on it in my teens and would say I am agnostic now. Apologies for the length of this question but I couldn't write it any shorter. I'll outline the main reasons I ditched christianity. I am 22 years old and in the process of getting an education in physics, and it has taught me how to think critically and logically. Also, rather than being taught a bunch of facts, parrot-style, the learning is based on understanding theories based on observations/experimental data. For this reason I feel like I have a real justification for believing the things I believe, which is in contrast to religious teaching, where the followers are required to blindly accept the word of their particular holy book. It follows that i have rejected every story in the Bible that is at odds with any solid scientific knowledge that humans have discovered. I'm talking about things like the creation story, adam and eve, miracles and so on. Evolution is a big thing with a lot of religious people, they seem to think it's about a blind belief, but it's not, it's a sound theory that makes a lot of sense backed up by a mountain of evidence. Also, it's too long for me to explain fully in this question, but I am currently convinced that the limits imposed by our brains, senses and the constant physical laws governing all matter/energy interactions in the universe actually mean that we do not have free will. I think it just seems like we do. The explanation is not important for this question, just the fact that it makes sense to me, I have a genuine reason for thinking it might be true. This is completely against what christianity is founded on. [If you want me to go into depth about this, email me, but it's too long to explain here.] In addition to this, I think it makes sense that religion was created as a way to keep people in check, invented in an age where people did not have any scientific reason to doubt the stories. The idea of hell is a very effective threat to keep people behaving themselves. So, back to my question. If you are a devoutly religious person (especially if you have a scientific background), why is it that you believe in what an ancient book says? Is it that millions believe it, or that your parents do? Is it the guilt you have been conditioned to feel when you have your doubts? Is it that you have never really given much unbiased thought to it? All of this was true of me before I really started to get educated and open my eyes. I felt very guilty at the time I started to realize I was believing in something for no real reason. I know people will say that the scientifically disproven stories in the Bible are "symbolic", but isn't that a very convenient excuse? An analogy would be a court of law - if a witness is found to be lying on any little thing, it throws the rest of their testimony into disrepute. Why should it be any different for the Bible? Have you any different reasons for the one I have listed? PS. if you are going to answer, please don't just quote Bible verses. Using stuff in the Bible to try and argue why you think it's true is cheating. Also, this is not about whether or not there exists some original divine "being" that kicked off the universe. This is about religious teaching and ritual only. Thanks.well yes robert, that's right - faith - believing something without proof, or without at least a sensible reason. why is that a commendable thing? also, I explained why I thought the "symbolic" excuse is a cop-out.to DarwingotnastyontheBeagle - this is not about what "God" is or is not. I am totally open to the idea of there being something that kicked the big bang off and set our universe in motion. this question is about you justifying your beliefs.to Zack - fair enough, if you can safely reject part of the current evolutionary for a good reason that's ok. what I don't understand is how you can get from that to belief in the Bible's word. How can you ignore all the other questionable things in it?again Anthony D - I am NOT TALKING ABOUT GOD'S EXISTENCE. I would love it if it turns out that there is a God. This is about RELIGION.actually sorry Anthony, i think i misinterpreted what you said. ignore my caps lock outburst, hahaha.actually no, i take that back. i stand by my outburst.Anthony - "In exactly what way is the existence of God unrelated to the question of why I am religious? That whether or not somebody believes God exists is unrelated to whether or not that they believe in him is at best a novel idea." it is possible to separate god from religion. they are two very different things and in my question i have tried to emphasise they should be treated separately. for instance, i believe in the possiblity of a "God" but I reject all religions. there is no reason to trust any religion or their definition of what a "God" is or how "he" should be served.DarwingotnastyontheBeagle - "Who are you to say my beliefs are wrong. I don't have to prove or justify anything to you, just like you don't to me." The point i was trying to make was that I CAN justify my beliefs, and that you should be able to justify your own. If you can justify them to yourself then you should be able to justify them to another person. if you CAN justify your beliefs to me then you SHOULD, that's what I wanted from this question. if you CAN'T justify your beliefs, then should you really be having them? more

Resolved Question: What`s Obama`s DOJ going to do about Florida`s proposal of immigration law as Arizona`s?

Do you think it would be interesting to see what Obama is going to do when you now have Arizona, Rhode Island & several states like South Carolina, Virginia & many others who are considering passing the same illegal immigration laws? Is he going to take all these states to court? It`s about time that we all start fighting back against illegal immigrants who are robbing us of jobs, have our health care costs going through the roof & destroying the public school system with over-crowded school rooms. Illegal immigration is wrong, I will support every single immigrant that comes here legally, but those who come here illegally have to be sent back to whichever border they came through. Our country is a republic, not a democracy, that is governed through the rule of law, not by the masses, as democracy does.: For your information, our Constitutional laws on illegal immigration are even more severe than Arizona`s, Rhode Island`s & the several states that are contemplating passing similar laws. Are you not concerned at all about the hundreds of illegals that are being exploited by these unscrupulous coyotes? This is another wrong that we have to correct by closing & securing our borders & I`m not just talking about the southern border, all of our borders have to be closed down & monitored by our military, Border Patrol, ICE & local police. more

Resolved Question: Is being furry wrong (especially the sexual aspect of it)?

I find myself to be a definitive furry. For those who don't know: A furry (fur-ee) is a person who likes or overly likes anthropomorphic animals. Anthropomorphic animals are a combination between human and animal. Yiff is the sound a fox makes while mating, so furries use it as an alternative word for anthropomorphic sex. Random Facts: At age 3, I wanted to become a tiger so I started trying to act like one. Dose this make me "Born Furry"? At age 6, I so-much wanted to be an anthropomorphic tiger (even though I didn't know what anthropomorphic was at the time), I drew tiger stripes on my right arm... For the exception of the fursuits which I do not care for, I seem to be 100% furry. Now to the part I'm asking about: Is it wrong to be sexually attracted to anthropomorphic animals? Based on the reason I'm attracted to that of anthropomorphic animals more-so than that of human, is it right or wrong? Here's my thinking and reason: Why am I sexually attracted to "women with claws"... I thought, "OK. I like cats.They're beautiful and gorgeous in they're own non sexual way... except for that tail of theirs." So then I went on to thinking, "OK. My mind is telling me that with the self sufficient aspect of particularly the tiger, + the sexiness of the human body = OMG perfect being!" But then I saw a particularly emotional (love wise) piece of the love between 2 anthropomorphic characters. then I thought, "Why... Why do I find that anthropomorphic characters hold so much more emotion that I associate with humans?" I pondered the question for a day and a half, and then I got the picture, literally, "Not only do anthropomorphic animals have eyes, a mouth and speech to explain emotion, but a tail and ears too. + with the tail being of sexual value to me... Oh god I'm a freak!" So then I went on to think that with all of this, its a perfect picture woman + with the freedom of being an anthropomorphic animal, not only is she self sufficient, shows a lot of emotion, and is sexually appealing, Shes free to do as she pleases! Free from the law that governs human society" So what I'm feeling about women needing anthropomorphic features to be appealing or "yiffy" is like someone else needing women to be complete instead of missing limbs. anyway, I always pretend to be my fursona (which happens to be an anthropomorphic white tiger. Info about why white tigers are white at the bottom.) with my dream mate while in bed (not necessarily having pretend sex). So, does my reasoning make sense? And is it wrong? Is it comparable to being gay? Was I "Born Furry"? Am I still a good person? If I was "Born Furry", then does it make it more right to be sexually attracted to anthropomorphic women? Now. About white tigers. White tigers are tigers that are missing a chromosome. This makes them bigger and whiter than normal tigers. also, their pupils are not slit, and their irises are a beautiful dark blue / light blue glossy color. Unfortunately, their uniqueness comes at a cost. Their larger structure is not as fast as the average tiger therefor, they're not able to catch pray as well as a normal tiger.I find a particular imaginary anthropomorphic tiger woman to be more emotionally and sexually attractive than normal human women. Please read all of the above more

Resolved Question: If America isn't a Christian Nation then why does the Declaration of Independence reference God?

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpation's, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpation's, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.13337: 234 years isn't really ancient, Fail more

Voting Question: Is it fair and accurate or unfair and inaccurate to say that Islam as a faith has been hijacked?

not only hijacked, but also its been poisoned by those who prcoclaim to be the purists of that faith ? it comes across as the least accomodating of all faiths on this planet, when it comes to embracing modernity and adapting to the global social and cultural climate. It appears that of the three abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) the later has struggled to come to terms with its surroundings and generaly speaking, 'how the rest of the world functions'. hey, is it simply the case as stated at the start - that the faith has been 'hijacked', or had been hijacked a very long time ago by a bunch of bearded radical clergymen who proclaim to be the purists of their faith ? i am of course referring to the christian equivalent of 'the clergy' , the priests if u like - only in Islam, we are now talking about Mullahs and these supposed 'Islamic Scholars' - of which one of the most widely followed and reverred openly laughed @ the idea of the world being a sphere in space, and insisted it was indeed 'flat' ! in a nutshell - the religion has to be wrestled out of the hands of these very deluded men, and be cleansed and refined for the 21st century so that when practiced and preached by the masses, it does not hinder ones mental growth which sadly today, it seems to be doing and doing very well. hey! I'm not an athiest but I uphold strong christian values like 'love thy neighbour' and 'loving fellow human beings like Christ loved his disciples' etc etc but aren't these simply 'universal traits' which, many a non-religious 'nice person' would have anyway ? i mean cmon, must we pick up a holy book to teach us obvious truths about how to govern our lives ? maybe they're handy to remind us of our sinful ways, but other than that - i have my reservations about their relevance to this day and age and modern day society in general. logic and reasoning is something we can all do if we utilise our brains - and its nothing that we need a bible, a torah or a koran really to teach us. Islam to my understanding is also the only religion today where the woman has no rights or power to challenge authority, especialy in the so called 'sharia court of law' (Also run by deluded bearded clerics who believe the earth is flat - not round ). thats all i wanted to share for now - do please , all of you jews, christians, ahtiests, agnostics, combo-faithed-kids, satanists, gays, hindus and of course muslims give your say on this. more