Debate Topic

[Altissimo]

i lol'd

[Olimar12345]

i lol'd

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

Ok, here are my thoughts (expect typos, I'm using a faulty keyboard. -_-) on the A-bomb thing:

No, America was not justified in using the Atomic Bomb. It wasn't worth killing millions of lives, and forcing some populations to still deal with the effects of radiation. One of the biggest reasons America dropped it was to scare/impress the USSR.

Except the USSR was actually our ally during WW2 (further nullifying your claim that Truman was going to sign a treaty with Stalin; the Cold War didn't really take off until about 1947, almost 2 years after Hitler's death).
 

. Einstein didn't have the best idea. Tesla began his career actually working for Einstein, but when Tesla broke away and started to work solo, this angered Einstein.

Not sure what you're talking about, given that Tesla was born in 1857 and Einstein in 1879.

Tesla was tired of having his ideas taken and used to give Einstein glory, and that's what pushed him over the edge: the lack of recognition/honor/whatever you want o call it. Since Tesla had left Einstein, he decided to try and overpower him in status (similarly to how big companies will bully small businesses out of an area). During the time of WWII, Tesla had heard how the US (along with other nations) needed a weapon of (essentially) mass destruction, and so he set to work on the Death Ray, a device that shot a concentrated, charged stream of air at a target, and this would vaporize the target instantly.

Two things; as Maestro pointed out, Tesla worked for Edison, and the reason Tesla left Edison is because he felt he had been screwed over after a business deal.
Secondly, Tesla's "death ray" was only ever really written about. He wrote a treatise on it, but never dared to actually put the idea on paper, due to his fear of it being stolen.

But this weapon had something more over the atomic bomb: the ability to be focused on a target. This alone should have sold the death ray over the atomic bomb. That, and they were reusable. As opposed to having only 2 A-bombs, the Death Ray could be shot repeatedly (after recharging, of course). Still, with Einstein seeking to destroy Tesla's career, he bullied him & his Death Ray to the point that his A-bomb seemed a much better weapon of mass destruction, and ultimately, brought about the downfall of Tesla. Had people listened to Tesla and not Einstein, that particular attack would have been radically different, and maybe even nonexistent.

Given that Tesla's weapon was A) never built  B) would most likely only fire pellets made of tungsten anyways, which would've been hard to manage at the time C) conceived AFTER Edison's death (the treatise was written in 1937, and Edison died in 1931), it's hard to verify your statement at all.

[Ruto]

The last couple of posts:

..........


Hope you didn't turn that in -.-

[mikey]

Hope you didn't turn that in -.-

oh my goodness ruto it wasn't homework

[Ruto]

oh my goodness ruto it wasn't homework

Yes, everyone should be glad it wasn't.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

Everyone should vote for a third party candidate just to get rid of this stupid 2 party system in America.
Discuss.

[mikey]

what makes the 2 party system stupid

[E. Gadd Industries]

I say we have a government system called "governmentism" (I came up with it just now, you like?). It's where the government is led by actually competent people. And the candidates we elect are competent candidates that actually care about keeping that nation alive.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

what makes the 2 party system stupid

The fact that both parties are completely corrupt. Candidates on both sides' respective establishments take tons of corporate money and Wall Street money. They answer to their donors, not the American people.

I say we have a government system called "governmentism" (I came up with it just now, you like?). It's where the government is led by actually competent people. And the candidates we elect are competent candidates that actually care about keeping that nation alive.

me like
In the words of George Carlin, "Let's replace all the gov't officials with mentally handicapped individuals, and sit back and watch things slowly improve."

[Altissimo]

I say we have a government system called "governmentism" (I came up with it just now, you like?). It's where the government is led by actually competent people. And the candidates we elect are competent candidates that actually care about keeping that nation alive.

I get the sentiment but that's wayyyy too simplistic a view

[BlackDragonSlayer]

The fact that both parties are completely corrupt. Candidates on both sides' respective establishments take tons of corporate money and Wall Street money. They answer to their donors, not the American people.

Is there any way we can just have a complete political purge and elect completely new people? People who are actually willing to change things to make it easier to crack down on corruption?

[mikey]

this dichotomy between "the people" and "the government" doesn't exist.

[Pianist Da Sootopolis]

Is there any way we can just have a complete political purge and elect completely new people? People who are actually willing to change things to make it easier to crack down on corruption?

Yes; if we get an amendment either in the national constitution or in all the states' constitutions for publicly funded elections, thereby taking private interests out of the equation.

this dichotomy between "the people" and "the government" doesn't exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

Except it does. When the SCOTUS ruled that it was not only legal but an expression of the first amendment for corporations to be able to donate as much as they want to political campaigns, it was the nail in the coffin of our already corrupt government.
Tell me, if you're a politician, is Exxon Mobile going to give you several hundreds of thousands of dollars because they like your stance on abortion, or gun laws? No, they're doing it because it's an inherent "you-scratch-my-back-I-scratch-yours" system.
Why else would someone like Hillary Clinton just happen to be for fracking, an inherently anti liberal idea, when that's the base she needs to appeal to desperately? Why else would she have voted for repealing Glass Stegall? It's simple; she's taken major money from the fossil fuel industry and Wall Street, respectively.
This is not a partisan issue; both sides are equally guilty when it comes to these kinds of things. This is why we haven't really had a liberal president for a long time. Bill Clinton was the start of a new kind of democrat; the centrist, pro corporate, pro establishment democrat.