grim reaper

Not too long ago - was an educational type show predicting how humanity would survive the end of the earth. What type ship would be built, where we would go, who would be allowed to go and what kind of food we'd take with us were discussed by current experts. Aired as a mini series if I remember correctly.

Thanks!!

There was a movie (or book) with a pacific island boy who ends up on an island by himself. He learns how to take care of himself and when he returns to his people.... (I can't remember what happens then).

It might have been a test for him to become a man.

Any ideas?

Is it possible for someone who was in JROTC and ROTC to join the USAF in the ABM and be promoted to the rank of Major in less than 6 years?

Is there a link where I can find out if someone is not being truthful who is saying that?

Is it any different now than it was in the late 80's?

Why are so many saying lately that illegal immigration is not really a problem but something that has been drudged up recently?

I am in CA and we have been living with the problem (and trying to do something about it) for YEARS. Over 10 years ago, there were propositions on the ballot to try to deal with the problem (the most famous passed in 1994). It is an issue that comes up in every election for the last 15 years at the VERY LEAST.

Now, it may be that it was not a national ISSUE until recently but the problem is not recent at all. Some of us on the border states are THRILLED at the prospect that now the rest of the country might begin to address a major concern we’ve had for years. (and NO, I don’t mean JUST the southern border states. I DO mean ALL border states. The states with sea ports have just as much a problem with illegals from elsewhere as do the states who border a country.)

SO, those of you who are saying it is not a problem and is a recent fabrication, can you please be more specific? It may be you were too ignorant to believe it was a problem, (and may still be), but there is NOTHING NEW about the problems of ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION.

I’m curious.

There are many things in the bible that have been decided were appropriate at the time but not now (i.e. slavery, beating servants and children and eye for an eye – not to mention hair length for women, etc.) based on the culture or issues at the time.

(I understand the eye for an eye was surpassed by turning the cheek, but slavery is now accepted as WRONG even though Jesus still accepted it.)

The question is, as we progress as a species and civilizations realize the inhumanity of certain things, at what point is the bible literally what god wants vs. a base for us to grow upon which then makes it open to interpretation? And who gets to decide? (aside from Catholics who have the Pope).

In other words, are all the Christians and Muslims out there without slaves solely because it is illegal or because it is wrong? If it is because it is wrong, who gets to say what else has been said to be ok or wrong but is now wrong or ok (respectively)? And at some point, do we then grow beyond the literal and accept it as a message of what is intended?

I don’t mean to offend, and feel free to leave the typical “believe and be saved” or “the bible is bogus”, but this is a question I have been curious about for a long time and would appreciate honest answers if there are any.

Something interesting came up recently in a couple of questions posed here so I figured I’d get others opinions on it.

Many talk about the need for illegals to come here and how bad it is back home, but how many of illegals (both from Mexico AND elsewhere) go to other countries as well in the same amounts?

In other words, is the US the only place that they can come because the other countries aren’t good enough? Or is it that the other countries won’t let them in as easily? I mean while Canada may not, almost every country borders another, why not go to the OTHER country to make a better life?

I know the UK has had some illegal immigration problems and I am admitting ignorance here as to the degree, but when other countries look at the US and think we must be crazy to have such a problem, I become curious as to “why US?”

Any intelligent answers out there? I really am curious. (and if you think I am being a smart alek, I’m not. Look at my other questions, I LOVE real answers whether I agree or disagree).

Clearly I think both pro and anti illegals can agree that something HAS to be done about the immigration problem if for no reason other than security.

I think a wall would really be the best start to the problem, I asked a question several months ago as to why Mexico would really oppose a wall (aside from the potential insult) and there was no pro illegal response.

SO, let's start with the wall, that doesn't affect those who are here now, it strengthens our security, and while yes, there would be digging etc. it would keep many from dying in the desert so the Mexican governemtn would no longer need to hand out pamphlets on how to enter the US to keep their citizens from dying.

Does anyone have an intelligent reason why the wall is a bad idea (and yes, I know $, but we are already paying)? And this is about the Southern Border right now, call me racist all you want, but that is the biggest problem right now.

Any other ideas on how to start dealing with the situation?

OK, I am wasting 5 points here, but Evil Avatar and Bunt. GO TO YOUR CORNERS.

This is supposed to be a section on immigration. Not someone's opinions of other races or statistics on crime.

Geez, it makes me wonder why I ever came back to immigration. Why can't we have intelligent questions about issues that affect this. There are many I disagree with who can put their arguments succinctly enough to where although I disagree, they have made their point.

I don't mean to be preachy here, admittedly it may be too late cuz this is sounding awfully preachy, BUT, lets get back to issues, OK?

Why is it that anytime a posting is made here about immigration discussing "illegal immigrants" people make it a racist thing (on both sides).

Most pro mexican illegal immigrants damage their cause by concluding that anytime that phrase is used, it MUST mean a mexican (which then proves that immigration issue IS a problem). Not to mention to stupidity of the "it was ours first" argument damaging their chances of changing anyone's mind.

(I have not seen a pro illegal imm. person who didn't use the mexican connection, that's why I use that description).

Many anti illegal immigrants damage their cause by making rude comments about a particular race when the issue is legal status, not origin of the offender.

Why is it that people cannot seem to deal specifically with the issue of illegal immigration (from ANYWHERE) is a problem both from the standpoint of jobs anywhere as well as the ease with which terrorists can enter the country easily without getting into a racial argument?

Seriously. With North Korea, we know we have a mad man who has weapons of mass destruction. We know the safety of the US is threatened. There is not even a question and yet we do nothing. Bush now talks about diplomacy, whereas with Iraq he talked about MAKING crazy leaders disarm.

Why is it that we are not taking freedom to the North Korean people the way we did Iraq?

Were we wrong then or are we wrong now?

I know what I think, but I really am curious as to how supporters justify the different handling. (or do you?)

Have you changed or thought twice about an opinion based on information here in Politics & Government.

IF SO, what was it?

I didn't ask this right last time so if you want the history, you can look here, http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ai3xQ...

But I AM curious if anyone has come here thinking one way and were convinced a different opinion was better or even if it made you think twice and what was it about?

If so, what was the most interesting thing you learned about an opposing viewpoint?

Basically more than half of these questions have one side spouting off to the other and calling each other ignorant and then the best answer is most always given to the person who repeated and agreed with what the asker wrote.

It does not appear that most questions are asked or answered in this category in order to gain knowledge (not that there is anything wrong with that - just an observation - I myself am guilty of it from time to time).

I am just curious as to how many people have actually been interested in "the other side's" opinion and if so, have any made you think about your own position twice or even given you info that changed or modified your opionion on any topic, and if so what.

Aside from it being taken as an insult it is not as if the border is in dispute and neither side knows which land belongs to whom.

There is already an imaginary line there, why not a wall? I am having a hard time seeing the difference between putting up a wall at the border and putting up a fence between my neighbor's property and mine.

I really am curious because I must be missing a reason. I am not talking about the cost or whether we should build one or not, just the reason for Mexicans to oppose. Or why the Mexican govt would oppose.

(and any Canadians, feel free to say why you would oppose a wall to the north too.)

Thanks

Go to Google, Type in the word failure, then hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button.

(thanks to shepherdofgarrett's for this.)

It is clear he is not liked by a lot of people. But no one can truly disagree with EVERYTHING a person has done. What one thing has he done that you thought was good?

It is clear he has support of a lot of people. But no one can truly agree with EVERYTHING a person has done. What one thing has he done that you disapproved of?

OK, so they are human beings, and deserve a break and after all, they are only doing jobs Americans won't do, right?

Have those who feel this way considered that once granted amnesty (or any shortcut path to citizenship) that they will then be "americans". They will be entitled to the minimum wage which they will insist upon because it is their right as a citizen. They will now have to actually file a tax return, so they can no longer be paid under the table.

SO, are they then really going to continue to do those jobs we "won't"? Or is it then going to mean MORE illegals have to come and take their place?

I really am curious, because everything being said now was said back in the 80's when everyone swore that a path to citizenship for the illegals then would end the problem. And now, we have even more illegals in 20 or so years than we had back then.

Have these proponents considered it is just a revolving door? If so, why even grant it in the first place?

Just curious, I have noticed green boxes around some people's pictures and was curious as to why.

If the party system was abolished in the United States and there were no longer republican, democrat or any 3rd party affiliations for offices, what negatives would you see happening? (any positives)?

Why do little kids only sleep a few hours during the day when they nap? Why doesn't their body put them out for 8 hours during the day and 2 at night?