John D

The assumption is that the Hebrews had no clue what a ball was, though they sculpted, played, saw the changing arc on the fave of the moon and the changing arc, as well as saw the shadows on bowl shaped and cylinder shaped items as light moved past it. It seems atheists believe that those of religious foundations have no observation skills or any intellectual capacity, so it would be interesting to know if there are different words for circle, sphere, and ball. Or is one word, used in different contexts enough to communicate sphere, circle or ball? Since these people helped build Egypt's greatest structures, you can bet they know what a ball type sphere was. And since the could fight, you can bet they knew the geometric shapes in they needed as well as for survival and play. Otherwise everything they made would be flat if it had a circle involved

Some people have locked into their lives and responsibility from the very beginning (some doing well and others, well), and have lost much time missing the good things. When they do find their freedom, they have aged and the "youth" that they wished for disappeared, with the new youth often looking down on them at times.

This brings the question of when it's too late. And should it be too late? Too late for what? Who knows? For one, maybe fun with younger people, or starting in arts or music or even falling in love with someone younger - maybe much younger (within reason of course).

When I take walks, I see so many people that may have just found their freedom, and they seem so alone with some of the younger people looking at them (and treating them) like they are too old to even be talked to. Sounds sort of sad, doesn't it? But we will all be there some day - if we are fortunate.

So, when do you think "older" is too old? Have you ever considered someone much older than you? What is your cut-off and why? How about "too young" for younger adults too? (NOTE: children are off limits and should always be)

Do you remember all the claims of disenfranchisement in the last couple of elections?

What are they ways (without naming parties or individuals) that voters are disenfranchised? Think of things outside of just voting,

And, do you support the protection of those that are disenfranchised regardless of which party they support or just those that are for the party you need to win? At what cost and with or without dishonesty and cheating?

Try to keep the party labels out and naming individuals. This will be interesting!

If you heard a lawyer was a good lawyer, but there is no record of winning cases and no record of success, is there a reason that you would trust that lawyer without having personally talked to that lawyer and having experience with them?

What about a doctor? mechanic? employee? What about a politician?

It seems that the Democrats have chosen race over experience, and possibly gender of males over females.

Hillary is clearly far more qualified than Obama, and Obama has nothing to show for any change as far as being part of any executive office or the sponsor of any key legislation. It seems that the only real thing that people are falling for is that he can read a teleprompter really good, and that his non-specific promises (compared to Hillary's very specific promises) framed as "change" and "hope" are being consumed without qualification.

Why? Especially, why by color? Equality is supposed to dismiss any color as qualification - as opposed to playing the "it's our turn" because of color game.

True equality does not use gender, color, age or economics as a measuring stick. True equality uses experience, qualification of skill and knowledge as the real measure of qualification.

So why is it ok that Obama - chosen by the Democrats mostly because of the idea of fairness for color (racism) - has trumped again the idea of a female President (since they emphasize more of class separation by gender, race, etc and promote equal time based on those ideas not of true equality).

Hillary is far more capable to be President than Obama. So why do you think the choice for Obama is better? And do you think that Hillary should kick the party to the curb for putting her in her place as a woman below the qualifications of race or male gender (or both) to be the leader that she really is?

In the recent years, there has been a strong movement to remove guns from the hands of citizens. In other countries, this has always proven itself as a way to empower the governments over the people - taking thier rights. In America, this has been proven as a failure in it's efforts to acheive the "claimed" goal of lower crime. Every time the guns are taken away from the law-abiding Citizens, the crime has escalated.

Given all the proof - and the very principle of freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution (that never changed, by the way) - why do people still think taking guns from the People will improve anything?

Isn't the idea of "gun control" blatent ignorance and assumption? Unless of course it really is the goal to errode the freedoms of The People.

The most vulnerable person is one that cannot defend themselves from people who care less about the law, society and it's People.

(BTW, how do you prevent guns from coming over the border to be used against you & neighbors?)

Why aren't people aware? The scare tactics of the environmentalists are obvious and even changing. Within the two years, the scare phrase changed from "Global Warming" (thank you Al, you brilliant billionaire!) to "Climate Change" (which happens all the time throughout earth's history".

And I thought scare tactics were only something that "republicans" used (ie, Democrat's claim of Bush and all other Republicans").

Who makes the prediction of "climate change"? Science? The same people that predict the weather with about, oh ... let's see ... a 50% accuracy? In the Northwest, it's about 25%. And they've already changed their minds about what to call it, because the facts are against them.

So, who do you think is behind the scare? Al Gore knows - BIG MONEY! Who else profits? Taxes and law (those who force this on us). Who loses? The People.

So, who makes the green cash on your fear? Chicken Little said the sky is falling (and is getting rich!). Do you run in fear anyway? Why?

Over all the years that I have watched people scramble to the hype of political elections (as well as stab the opposition in the back with "sucker punches"), I have always wondered how it is that people think they vote for more "freedom" when they vote for the Democrat party.

The democrats are notorious for dividing the citizens into groups (socialist "classes" labelts) and pitting them against eachother. They also remove freedoms from masses in favor of a select class in a number of a few. They always threaten higher taxes in good times or bad, and always promise increasing the reach and size of government.

The founders had hopes that Americans would prefer to keep the government small and controllable, and warned of exchanging your freedom for so-called government "securities".

Democrats now want us to pay dearly for our freedoms to an increased loss of our independence, and want us to suffer and pay the rest of the world for our hard earned successes. Why do you vote for this?

Is America becoming the new "Babel" where many languages begin to complicate, confuse and frustrate the people due to an increased erosion of understanding and communication? Why does it need to become that way, and who is behind it?

We require our children to learn it, we had to learn it. Why shouldn't every person desiring to live here be mandated to use it?

The reason a country mandates a single language is primarily for direct communication and simplicity. It creates the fastest method for citizens, businesses and governments to convey and express ideas and emotion. It is the shortest path to understanding when transactions or emergencies are required to be explained.

Our governments spend millions of wasted translation/printing dollars that could instead go for food, shelter and training.

English - it is not a color. It is not a "race". It does not discriminate. It is a necessary communication tool that helps us to all communicate in the quickest method possible

The question is simple. The Constitution is supposed to guarantee equality, which means that color, gender or religion is to be avoided as a measure of qualification. But, in the political candidacy, a person of color is praised as a certain guarantee of improvement because of the color. If not a person of color, then of gender - which is not a guarantee of qualifications either. This is specifically racist and sexist, which is supposed to be shunned by the left, but instead is a tool for votes.

In an age when stereotyping and bigotry are supposed to be wrong (and unconstitutional), why do people insist on using race and gender as reasons for selection and votes? Isn't that being hypocritical?

Do you believe that color or gender qualifies for a guaranteed improvement politically and intellectually? If so, why?

Here is an example: If you learned that evolution was an actual fact with proven links, would you dismiss it if you don't believe in evolution? What if the situation was reversed? If evolution was proven false and that there is no evidence, would you dismiss it or consider it?

It seems that in this so-called age of reason, that people will not consider looking at information that is in direct opposition to their beliefs - even if their beliefs are only based from peer pressure.

Another example is politics - what if your party is truly shown to be unconstitutional in their approach, and the other party is more constitution but with faults. Would you continue to defend your party at all costs - even with the evidence? or would you break your allegience to that party and consider the other party?

Now if we pay attention, the defenders "at all costs" will assume that I am implying something in favor of one side or the other - when in fact this is a sincere question.

Throughout history, there have been beneficial arrangements that created profit by force, extortion of taxes or protections of law arranged by the lawmakers. All which benefitted those who designed the "arrangement".

One of the most common (and also highly exagerated) is the claim of Republicans that create profits for Corporations through politics and lawmaking which in turn benefits both the politician/lawmaker and the Corporations - which in truth is demonstated by both parties to their own benefit.

However it is done, this is called "a conflict of interest". It is arranged by lobbyists and by insiders, and is typically established to prevent others from interferring (ie, "The People").

Both parties are guilty of this, but only one gets the blame. Why is this? There is a party that offers free health care for all the world and will get votes for it. In essence, it is a bribery for votes. Why isn't that a conflict of interest? It is, but does it matter anymore? If not, why not?

There is an interesting, but often ignored implication by those who claim democracy dies under a particular party. Recently, it's the claim that when Republicans are in the majority, then democracy is dead. But at the same time, there is an assumption that democracy fully thrives under the promise of an all democrat government.

How can this be democracy? Isn't the hope for shutting out ideologies of other partys and their constituents an equal destruction of democracy? Especially considering first, that we are all Americans, and that we all have the right to our voice in the influence of government. Even more remarkably is that we are all, under the constitutional definition ... republicans in a constitutional republic.

Democracy would be dead under the hope of the many democrats who hope to forever censor and fully revoke the voice of republican constituents and their politicians, so how is this not also the death of democracy?

People claim that Bush's rating is an issue, while many Presidents have had as low or as close as Bush - especially in times of war and conflict.

But why doesn't congress take the hit for having even lower ratings than the President? Oh, because they are majority liberals - as though that is expected and justified?

We all heard that America would be saved under the Democrat majority - and the ratings have taken a literal dump since the Dem's took power over both the house and the Senate. But all we hear about is Bush. Bush is not the lawmaker, and is only the Executive administrator of the Executive Branch. That means that he only has the power that Congress gives him.

Yet - with all the claims by the Lib Senators and Representatives (the lawmakers), there hasn't been one lawsuit or impeachment hearing under the Majority Democrat rule. Why?

Of course, there are the predictable "Bush has too much power" claims. That only comes from the Constitionally ignorant. Why is that?

How is it justified to force America to buy foreign purchases of oil to send them over thousands of miles of oceans to save some barren places in an an unpopulated (man or animal) area, as well as any other areas in America?

Environmentalists have cornered America to bankrupt itself by restricting our own development of oil by claiming that we need to save our environment, while hypocritically supporting that (if oil destroys environments) we send oil in an even higher risk of transportation - shipping in supertankers over the fragile seas. On top of that, our government environmental regulations (and fuel taxes) have created such a burden on Americans, that we cannot afford to support investment into new fuel ideas.

Fuel runs the world, and now we see that China intends to hurt America by purchasing greater amounts of oil than they can use, thereby forcing our costs even higher.

Is it worth it to lose savings, food, jobs and homes? Why? No other major country has to - why us?

In America (as far as the law and government), the goal has been to ignore the differences based on color, gender and religion (or lack of). So why is this forgotten when people go to vote for someone?

Isn't it racist to assume that someone will be better or worse because of their color? I hear people excited about "the first black president" or the "first woman president". Why does this matter?

Shouldn't the point be about who will be the best because of their knowledge and ability? Of course it should.

The irony is that the same people who claim they hate racism (or sexism) are the very people who will vote based on race (or gender).

So if you vote for someone because of something they did not choose (color or gender) and that has nothing to do with the ability of thought and ability, and you are going to vote for them because of those things, why?

Isn't that defeating the cause of equality? Or did you think that equality was about equal time for differences?

I find it very interesting and disturbing that the act of growing food to feed fuel tanks is more important than feeding the poor and starving - for what? There is no proof that bio-fuels are going to improve our situation (let alone proof that the situation is our fault ... even Mars was heating up!). Now, the Earth is experiencing the coldest global winter seasons in 100 years!

That being said, with predictions of overly sensitive non-thought reactions, let's ask the question anyway:

How much food do we have to destroy to make one gallon of fuel, and only to go around 28 to 40 miles for one vehicle? Is the price that all will have to pay worth saving the already record low emissions of vehicles? Is it worth forcing the impoverished further into decline, and taking the middle class and charging them into oblivion?

Has anyone thought who profits on carbon credits and over- regulation and forced controls?

For the loss of how much food?

Propoganda is a primary tool of those who seek to manipulate others. The tools are used to cause emotional reactions and doubt as well as establish that the source of the propoganda is the only reliable and trustworthy source. The main function of propoganda is to prevent you from researching the truth by making you feel uncomfortable with simply asking questions.

There is much propoganda in politics and the media, but many people can't identify it. There is an easy test, but many don't recognize it or are afraid to use it. Can you think of it?

Remember, if you don't ask questions of your source and seek information from ALL available sides - AND you have emotional rejection of some opposite side without checking with the other side, then you are probably a victim of propoganda, whether by politics, lifestyle or any other form of prejudice.

So, again ... how do you handle propoganda? Or are you a victim of it and didn't think to ask about it and are afraid to?

This winter is the coldest winter globally in 100 years - there are more scientists that disagree with global warming, and they are not being given equal time in the media. Why is this?

What if you found out that your politicians and schools were teaching Global Warming as a fact, when in fact the claims are false. How would you respond? Would you continue to vote for them? Learning as though they are the experts?

Today, there is a Global Warming conference of many (some 2500) experts and scientists that is in opposition to Gore and his self proclaimed "experts", and the media refuses to show you that this is going on.

So, I ask you ... what will you do if the whole claim of Global Warming as a cause by man (in the coldest winter on record in 100 years) is false, and is really a means to profit on the ignorance of people.

Do you just believe because the ones on "your side" say so? Why? Facts are facts, and lies are propoganda. How do you know if you don't challenge them?

If hate, prejudice and bigotry of any kind is wrong, then why is it that even the groups that promote so called peace and tolerance are known to express hate, prejudice and bigotry to those that don't exactly line up with their ideals? Even to the point of wishing death and harm? Is this right, especially in the land of freedom and free choice called America?

Isn't this really hypocrisy and a desire to force others into accepting ideas? Even if the chosen group or individual that represents (even at a minor level) opposing ideas may actually be beneficial or non-destructive, or both?

In short, how can people who say that hate and prejudice is wrong, wind up using slander, accusations and the promotion of hostile expression to another person or group just because they don't think the same way? Wasn't it proven to be better to accept and try to get along with others than to create division because of minor differences of ideas or philosophies?