Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

First: Source on this. Both an article on the occurrence from an unbiased source as well as evidence of the supposed "liberal media" position.

Secondly: I have no idea why Conservatives would promote waste in government. Shouldn't the officers have used enough bullets, not an ungodly amount? The guy couldn't have been standing after one bullet entered his body, much less 10-20-30-40-50-60-70-80 bullets.

Sounds abit retributive, sounds personal. Which is understandable, but sort of a waste of money.

To put it in blunt terms: why waste bullets on a criminal?

I'm pretty far to the left of the American spectrum. There are a few positions where I stand with Conservatives, but only coming from a decidedly Left point of view.

There's alot of wiggle-room, and many things considered "Right" or "Left" are really pretty open to either conception of things. One side sort of randomly picked it as their own and the other, wanting to be different from the opposing side, decided to stand against it.

I wholeheartedly believe that wealth should be shared by all.

I stand behind the rights of gays and lesbians to enjoy all of the same rights and privileges of the straight population.

I believe that immigration should be open, but that educational and job programs should help integrate different cultures into our society.

I believe in the right to keep and bear arms, within reason.

I believe that hunting is quite alright, that eating meat is morally acceptable.

I believe that healthcare should be a fundamental right, free for individuals (beyond the taxes everyone must pay to fund it).

I believe that all media resources should be held by the public. Television, radio, and the internet should be independent from the government, but run by non-profits answerable to the public whom they serve.

I believe all education, from pre-K to graduate school should be free (beyond the taxes everyone must pay to fund it).

I believe in a strict and severe progressive taxing system, keeping wealth distribution as equal as possible.

Abortions are not desirable, but it is decision best left up to the mother.

Queers will never be on the same level as Republicans. Only a vacuous, black hole of a personality in decay may bring the two near each other.

Supporting gay rights and calling someone a "Faggot" as a pejorative isn't exactly coherent. As a homosexual myself I would ask that you use a more demeaning term to describe someone you don't like:

Asshole

Jerkoff

Republican

Are a few good ones.

We don't live in a culture where debate has any meaning. There are rarely any "debates" when it comes to politics, which is the context of this issue.

Politicians and commentators usually simply hurl their positions at each other repeatedly, their talking points and memorized "facts" without really getting down to negating, refuting, or rebutting. Opponents ignore each other's logic and just repeat what they want to say, over and over and over.

Even if there were a "real" debate, the public doesn't give a crap. Honest debate is not valued, most people who have an interest in politics are interested mostly in "doing battle", defeating the other side. A real debate needs all parties, viewing and participating, to honestly care about the truth, care about hearing the other side out, and be comfortable with being proven wrong in some way, shape, or form.

Gore, then, has no real reason to want to debate the Lord. It would not benefit Gore or his position. It wouldn't hurt it, either. Noone would pay attention, noone would be convinced one way or another. Also, debating someone is a tacit admission of their positions merit....even if it is thought to be wrong.

African Americans don't debate White Supremacists for a reason. Gays don't debate the Westboro Baptist Church for a reason. Scientists don't debate with doctors for a reason.

Also, as stated before, these are politicians who don't really know what they are talking about. Gore shouldn't be the spearhead of the Global Climate Change movement, and the Lord shouldn't be the spearhead of the Climate Change Denier movement.

Anyone who actually cares about the truth, on either side, would be interested in a debate between two competent scientists.

Joe, can I request that you find better sources to back up any debates or arguments you'd like to put forward?

"Dr. Mercola" seems to be an extremely unreliable, non-credible source. His other articles include teaching people that if they stay in the "right mood" they can defeat viruses.

Do yourself a favor and steer clear of hacks and propagandists, it doesn't help you, your arguments, or your beliefs.

The whole premise of this debate is the following:

The government cannot be trusted to offer publicly run health options or services.

The evidence presented is: The government failing to prevent a private company from selling a harmful product in a single instance.

The biggest logical fault here is the evidence, which shows the government failing to stop a company from selling something harmful. As bad as that is, the evidence shows that a private entity is committing a worse offense by knowingly producing and selling a harmful product.

If the FDA never existed this product would have gone out anyways. There would have been no process by which to stop its sale.

In every instance that the FDA "fails", there is always a failure of private entities. When the FDA allows (accidentally, or through corruption) a bad product to go on the market, it is allowing free enterprise to go on without an interruption.

When the FDA succeeds, when it stops a bad product from going on the market, it is doing so against a free market decision that is deemed to be hazardous.

At any rate, would the people who are using this as an example of why the government can't do this or that actually propose that the FDA be abolished? Is it doing more harm than good? Is the government program helping, harming, or having no effect overall?