I don't think he could do worse. And if done properly, it could work quite well. Surviving the change would be pretty difficult, of course. I have, but I also base my opinions on more than anecdotal evidence. The current ceasefire has the same conditionals and elements in it (and then some more on top of them) that Israel never fully implemented in the 2012 ceasefire despite a halt to rocket attacks. With the pressure that Netanyahu is getting from conservatives, I can't see Israel living up to this ceasefire which is likely way over ambitious, especially when it comes to the mandated later talks and dependency on a second round of successful negotiations. Anecdotal evidence? We're discussing changing the American mindset, and you're saying people shouldn't trust what people on the streets of the place in question are saying/thinking because it's anecdotal evidence? I don't believe you thought that through. "Are you going to believe all this theory, or your lying eyes?" Or in this case, ears. I'm saying that your couple of personal sources or youtube videos are anecdotal evidence. If you really want to understand general attitudes in a more robust fashion then you need solid polling data which has been available and some of which has been posted in this thread. Paying attention to comments in the street is vital, but you need to be able to support the conclusions you draw from that with more than that. I can't remember which mainstream media outlet I was watching...odds are it was CNN, but I don't recall. I remain saying you are looking at the wrong issue. I'm not discussing objective right or wrong here, but rather perceptions given to average Americans. |
|
|
|
They need to categorically separate themselves from any military action in a very public way, then make the easy case for the financial oppression Israel is carrying out. Palestinians are their own worst enemy, and they just don't get it. I disagree. What Israel is doing is inexcusable. And here you keep treating them as one group. They aren't. Hamas is self interested. No surprise there. We can either accept that reality and move forward with talks realizing this or we can never have peace. So far Israel has opted for the latter. To this I would respond that you should check around for what various people interviewed in Gaza had to say about the public executions. They make my case. Obviously there are many differences within any group. But on this, they are the victims of their upbringing...including schools and culture. They say the wrong things. Israelis do the same things, but media generally makes the Israelis who are into the violence look like the rare loon. I say it wouldn't work because I honestly don't see how it could. Before we were talking about a business leader in charge of the PA, here you are advocating one in Gaza. That wouldn't change anything in Gaza, how could it? It wouldn't change the farming and fishing crisis, the crisis of medical supplies, fuel, or cash, the salinity and water crisis, it wouldn't end the blockade. I'm not sure how you would see such a leader in Gaza as making a big difference. Israel has been pretty consistent in its treatment of Gaza regardless of how peaceful or violent Hamas acts. Lack of consistency will always fail. I was speaking of the PA. Gaza itself is pretty much a walking morgue at this point. But had they taken a somewhat different path, there would have been a much better path. The point is that even when Hamas adheres to ceasefire conditions and brings violence to a standstill they still have not seen any progress in having general grievances addressed. Once again, where is the incentive? You are asking them to sit quietly while Israel suffocates them and the Gazan population. I doubt that most of us would do as much. Israel has certainly started wars over far less. I was speaking of the PA. Gaza itself is pretty much a walking morgue at this point. But had they taken a somewhat different path, there would have been a much better path. Unfortunately there is no evidence of this. Again, you're asking the wrong question. I doubt Israel will ever willingly give incentives in a straightforward fashion. They get away with that by pointing to thousands of rockets being fired at them. You're trying to make it right versus wrong, and that has never been my point. |
|
|
|
Israel is trolling the Palestinians by goading them into a violent, albeit pointless response, then sitting back and saying "see, they're all terrorists". The violent response is unbelievably stupid and can't win. They are simply massively outgunned. Right, but they goad them by blatantly violating the terms of the ceasefire and threatening to destroy them anyway by doing so. Hamas as two options in that case: 1.) Disappear 2.) Launch rockets and fight in the hopes of forcing a reprieve through new ceasefire terms and international attention. A third option is to condemn all violence. Israel cannot really go all offensive if they have no cover of rocket fire or kidnappings or whatever to make it look good. So a couple of things here: 1.) Hamas has tried peace via a ceasefire in which it did a good job at controlling third party groups. It simply didn't pay off for Hamas which saw its fishing rights cut during this time (in violation of the 2012 ceasefire deal), and Gaza crossings routinely closed (also in violation of the 2012 ceasefire deal). The fighting here was a direct result of the failure of the peace process with Hamas and a failure to live up to ceasefire obligations by Netanyahu's Administration (and due to the Sisi takeover of Egypt). You want them to condemn all violence? Fine I'd honestly like that too, but what would it get them? Where is the evidence that it would in any way improve situations in Gaza or for the Palestinians? 2.) Abbas has tried this exact tract in the West Bank only to be met with a failure by Israel to live up to any of its West Bank specific peace plan promises, a slow death of Palestinian statehood through settlement expansion, and political unrest as Abbas and his allies are labeled puppets of Israel or at the very least complicit in the face of ongoing Israeli abuse, discrimination, and violence. Israel has demonstrated quite visibly in the West Bank that condemning violence doesn't net Palestinians anything other than fewer bombs being dropped on them. They have provided little incentive for peace. To be perfectly straightforward, it was this violence that has led Israel to a ceasefire that actually addressed some of Gaza's grievances. So as distasteful and immoral as we both find it; the simple fact is that it worked. Israel has created a situation where the only paths that pay dividends are ones of violence. I disagree totally. A couple of years isn't going to resolve anything. That kind of short term thinking will lead them to where they are. As long as the violence continues, and is effectively started by Hamas, then Israel continues to win. You didn't address the main question here: what incentives have Israel created for peace? We've seen years of it in the West Bank and years of a fully cooperative Palestinian governmental authority that denounces violence and recognizes Israel's right to exist and in the face of all of that absolutely zero gains by Palestinians in the West Bank in the area of West Bank specific issues such as settlement expansion. Where are the incentives? You can disagree but your counter argument isn't very fleshed out here in terms of addressing my points. Are you actually looking for a counter argument from me as to whether Israel has blame? This may have gotten away from me, but my only point in all this is that Hamas is not going to improve the situation. I have zero expectation of Israel offering real incentives. I'm not sure why you would think I was implying that. |
|
|
|
As far as the NPR link goes, after reading it here I see that the source is Saleh al-Arouri; which would mean that the attack did not stem from Hamas leadership in Gaza, but rather more likely through an exile chain operating independently in the West Bank and directed from Turkey (where he lives).
But even here there isn't evidence of it being directed even from Turkey. All he said in his statement was that Al Qassam Brigade members carried it out, which we already knew, it was merely determined that they were operating alone and not under the direction of Hamas (by the Israeli police chief of the area and by independent analysts). While this douche bag is praising them, he did not actually state that he or Hamas in Gaza ordered the attack. Which of course makes the NPR headline a bit misleading.
Who corrected it? Hamas? Nope.And that's the problem. Corrected it? Hamas denied that it carried the attack out from the start. Or do you mean who solved the situation by rescuing the students? That question would seem to imply that you think that Gaza's operational headquarters in Gaza have operational control of the West Bank branch of the attackers or even of the larger West Bank Qassam Brigade branch. It doesn't matter in the least what either one of us thinks. Perception is key, and American perception remains the same or worse. |
|
|
|
1) in NYC 5000 people out of 8.4 million pay 50% of all city taxes
2) in California 150,000 pay 50% of state taxes
3) in America the top 1% pay 40% of all federal taxes.
No other country rips off the rich like we do in America but ,sadly, the joke is on us because when you take incentive and capital from your most productive citizens and give to your least productive, ie., liberal bureaucrats and free loaders, everyone suffers in a poor economy whose heart has been cut out.
We all suffer when anti American liberals steal capital from our most heroic and productive citizens. The more liberals steal venture capital the fewer ventures we have. That means fewer jobs and slower economic growth. A child could understand, just not a brainwashed liberal. |
|
|
|
As far as the NPR link goes, after reading it here I see that the source is Saleh al-Arouri; which would mean that the attack did not stem from Hamas leadership in Gaza, but rather more likely through an exile chain operating independently in the West Bank and directed from Turkey (where he lives).
But even here there isn't evidence of it being directed even from Turkey. All he said in his statement was that Al Qassam Brigade members carried it out, which we already knew, it was merely determined that they were operating alone and not under the direction of Hamas (by the Israeli police chief of the area and by independent analysts). While this douche bag is praising them, he did not actually state that he or Hamas in Gaza ordered the attack. Which of course makes the NPR headline a bit misleading.
Who corrected it? Hamas? Nope.And that's the problem. |
|
|
|
I don't think he could do worse. And if done properly, it could work quite well. Surviving the change would be pretty difficult, of course. I have, but I also base my opinions on more than anecdotal evidence. The current ceasefire has the same conditionals and elements in it (and then some more on top of them) that Israel never fully implemented in the 2012 ceasefire despite a halt to rocket attacks. With the pressure that Netanyahu is getting from conservatives, I can't see Israel living up to this ceasefire which is likely way over ambitious, especially when it comes to the mandated later talks and dependency on a second round of successful negotiations. Anecdotal evidence? We're discussing changing the American mindset, and you're saying people shouldn't trust what people on the streets of the place in question are saying/thinking because it's anecdotal evidence? I don't believe you thought that through. "Are you going to believe all this theory, or your lying eyes?" Or in this case, ears. |
|
|
|
They need to categorically separate themselves from any military action in a very public way, then make the easy case for the financial oppression Israel is carrying out. Palestinians are their own worst enemy, and they just don't get it. I disagree. What Israel is doing is inexcusable. And here you keep treating them as one group. They aren't. Hamas is self interested. No surprise there. We can either accept that reality and move forward with talks realizing this or we can never have peace. So far Israel has opted for the latter. To this I would respond that you should check around for what various people interviewed in Gaza had to say about the public executions. They make my case. Obviously there are many differences within any group. But on this, they are the victims of their upbringing...including schools and culture. They say the wrong things. Israelis do the same things, but media generally makes the Israelis who are into the violence look like the rare loon. I say it wouldn't work because I honestly don't see how it could. Before we were talking about a business leader in charge of the PA, here you are advocating one in Gaza. That wouldn't change anything in Gaza, how could it? It wouldn't change the farming and fishing crisis, the crisis of medical supplies, fuel, or cash, the salinity and water crisis, it wouldn't end the blockade. I'm not sure how you would see such a leader in Gaza as making a big difference. Israel has been pretty consistent in its treatment of Gaza regardless of how peaceful or violent Hamas acts. Lack of consistency will always fail. I was speaking of the PA. Gaza itself is pretty much a walking morgue at this point. But had they taken a somewhat different path, there would have been a much better path. |
|
|
|
Israel is trolling the Palestinians by goading them into a violent, albeit pointless response, then sitting back and saying "see, they're all terrorists". The violent response is unbelievably stupid and can't win. They are simply massively outgunned. Right, but they goad them by blatantly violating the terms of the ceasefire and threatening to destroy them anyway by doing so. Hamas as two options in that case: 1.) Disappear 2.) Launch rockets and fight in the hopes of forcing a reprieve through new ceasefire terms and international attention. A third option is to condemn all violence. Israel cannot really go all offensive if they have no cover of rocket fire or kidnappings or whatever to make it look good. So a couple of things here: 1.) Hamas has tried peace via a ceasefire in which it did a good job at controlling third party groups. It simply didn't pay off for Hamas which saw its fishing rights cut during this time (in violation of the 2012 ceasefire deal), and Gaza crossings routinely closed (also in violation of the 2012 ceasefire deal). The fighting here was a direct result of the failure of the peace process with Hamas and a failure to live up to ceasefire obligations by Netanyahu's Administration (and due to the Sisi takeover of Egypt). You want them to condemn all violence? Fine I'd honestly like that too, but what would it get them? Where is the evidence that it would in any way improve situations in Gaza or for the Palestinians? 2.) Abbas has tried this exact tract in the West Bank only to be met with a failure by Israel to live up to any of its West Bank specific peace plan promises, a slow death of Palestinian statehood through settlement expansion, and political unrest as Abbas and his allies are labeled puppets of Israel or at the very least complicit in the face of ongoing Israeli abuse, discrimination, and violence. Israel has demonstrated quite visibly in the West Bank that condemning violence doesn't net Palestinians anything other than fewer bombs being dropped on them. They have provided little incentive for peace. To be perfectly straightforward, it was this violence that has led Israel to a ceasefire that actually addressed some of Gaza's grievances. So as distasteful and immoral as we both find it; the simple fact is that it worked. Israel has created a situation where the only paths that pay dividends are ones of violence. I disagree totally. A couple of years isn't going to resolve anything. That kind of short term thinking will lead them to where they are. As long as the violence continues, and is effectively started by Hamas, then Israel continues to win. |
|
|
|
|
People are selfish in one of 4 ways:
Way of life: Culture, 2nd amendment rights
Possessions: House, Wife, dog
Reputation: Generally considered unselfish
Emotions: Also generally considered unselfish
|
|
|
|
And the attempt to rid us of evil is stupid. I agree, evil should be embraced at a subjective level. This helps combat identify with your shadow material. And what is that supposed to mean?  Goodness comes from cooperation amongst evil. What does this mean? or did you mean to say "cooperation [with] evil." 2 wrongs make a right. Explain. That the best way to avoid the evil inside you,is to embrace it.....as much as we want to get rid of it ,we can't is part of everything...is even a part of good....see the ying yang simbol. When it comes to the yin yang, lets assign the black to be evil and the white to be goodness. You try to get rid of one side, the little circle of opposing color gets bigger to compensate. Like a member of the military or a police officer attempting to rid us of evil. Evil finds a way to manifest itself, perhaps within the person trying to get rid of evil. The cop, the soldier may become more evil than they already are. |
|
|
|
Isn't "routing the Iraqi Army" kind of like routing the French? There are enough sovereign nations in t6he area threatened by this group that they should be able to fight off ISIS themselves. it's not our job to police the world.
First lets ignore that we went into iraq to stop terrorists and then obama left the country without the ability to protect themselves. Then lets ignore that our allies are under attack. Then lets ignore that isis now has the man power and the money to attack Americans inside the US. then lets forget that whoever becomes controlled by isis becomes our enemy. Then lets forget that obama aided the muslim brotherhood in Egypt which failed miserably. then lets forget that iraq asked for US aid a year ago to stop isis while in the early formation stages. Then lets forget that obama helped invade Libya and then left that country a hotbed mess for terrorists to take over. And lets forget that if we had aided the Syrian rebels in their civil war before terrorists did we wouldn't be in any of this mess right now. Obviously you have no problem sitting back and watching the slaughter of innocent humans much like many Americans did before Japan invited us into world war II. In other words you don't understand foreign policy, the need for the US to have allies and why we need to stop terrorists before they come here. We didn't go into Iraq to fight terrorists. If you think that's the case, we're wasting our time here, because you don't even understand the issue. Second, Obama didn't leave Iraq without the ability to defend itself. The Bush Administration negotiated a demobilization time table, and we spent the better part of 10 years arming and teaching the Iraqis to defend themselves. When the time came, and we had to pull out, Obama even offered to extend our stay, but the Iraqi government refused to renew the agreements that allowed our people to operate there without fear of reprisal from the Iraqi government if they decided they didn't like any of our soldiers. At least TRY to get your facts straight. If we want to concern ourselves with the potential for ISIS to attack inside the US, then we need to address that possibility and use intelligence to prevent it. That does NOT mean spending our resources over there starting yet another war with no end game on multiple fronts over there in the middle east. And lastly, stop pretending you give a shit about those "innocent humans" being killed by ISIS. You don't care about them any more than you care about the hundreds of thousands of minimum wage workers at Burger King stores all over America. You trot them out as pawns to try and vilify others who don't share your politics. That's ALL you use them for and the entire extent of your care for them. You're not fooling anyone. This is about one thing and only one thing - you hate Obama and glom onto anything that opposes him, no matter what it is, and most of the time, you don't even understand the issues. You are one of those people who never shuts up long enough to actually LEARN anything. Why does ISIS exist? Is it because Obama left Iraq? No, it's not. It's because George W Bush invaded Iraq and CREATED the power vacuum they seek to fill. We have no business trying to police the entire world. And the mess things are in exists in large part because we have TRIED to do that. And in the mean time, we are bankrupting our own country in doing so. |
|
|
|
|
Isn't "routing the Iraqi Army" kind of like routing the French? There are enough sovereign nations in t6he area threatened by this group that they should be able to fight off ISIS themselves. it's not our job to police the world.
|
|
|
|
Simple fact is that the countries over in the middleeast don't want to do anything about ISIS and until they and Europe get behind a movement to rid the middle east of ISIS then all we can do is kill a few of them then wait till they regroup and we do it all over again. Do you really think that this would solve the problem.
and as I said.. the liberals and the media not taking isis terroirsts seriously...and your attitude infects the leftists in the media and in the administration... even if isis does attack this country in some way... and thats what they are promising to do... the libeals and the media will brush away critisizm and blame everyone for the attack other than the murderous terrorists.... you are the perfect example of what I posted..... |
|
|
|
And the liberals, the administration and the liberal media is not taking isis and their terrorist threats seriously... the NY times feels that isis should not be labeled as evil... or terrroists... or monsters.... cnn even questions labeling isis as evil... and then you read the obama administrations take on isis.... George Stephanopoulos Frets Over U.S. Taking Action Against ISIS: ‘Is There A Danger Here of Overreacting?’ http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2014/08/24/george-stephanopoulos-frets-over-us-taking-action-against-isis-there-#ixzz3BPfLwoBx This Week with George Stephanopoulos
August 24, 2014
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: On the bigger questions, Bill Kristol, it struck me how quickly this has all moved. From ISIS being a minor threat, the president talking about it several months ago as the junior varsity, to now an imminent threat, the words of Chuck Hagel, to the United States. And I guess I wonder, is there a danger here of overreacting?
BILL KRISTOL: I wish there were but I think the fundamental danger remains underreaction. Back in January when the president said to David Remnick, we have decimated Al Qaeda, core Al Qaeda as they like to say. It's just the JV now. The ambassador, our ambassador to Iraq, appointed by President Obama, Robert Beecroft was telling Martha Raddatz, she reported this on your show and here on ABC that we have a huge problem. There’s this group ISIS that has taken over Fallujah and Ramadi and has ambitions to go north. Someone asked the ambassador, I believer in private, well what is the White House doing about this? He kind of shrugged. So I think the president, I would like a little overreaction by the president now. He's coming back from his vacation. He should go to Congress right away to get an authorization. But meanwhile, he's acting under the War Powers Act and he shouldn’t wait. He shouldn't wait. There's a huge amount of bombing and damage that could be done to ISIS tomorrow if the president orders it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And given the president's rhetoric on Thursday, a cancer on the world, there’s going to be a dramatic escalation of action as well to match that rhetoric.
PEGGY NOONAN: Yeah, what was very interesting the past week, was the comments of Chuck Hagel. Not a burly, pro-war figure. Someone who has been skeptical in the past saying, this is the biggest and worst thing we have seen in a long time. The comments of General Dempsey saying, essentially the same thing. Something big and bad is happening here. It's part of the reason the president was so criticized for not saying what, in fact, I think Hagel and Dempsey said. Do you know what I mean? They were making presidential-type statements.
isis is slaughtering people left and right... threatening everyone... especially the us.... they are savagely creating an islamic caliphate... they have now taken over a syrian military base and have access to weapons they didn't have before.... and yet the liberals don't really see any danger.... Lets ask you righties a question. Just what is the legal ramifications of attacking ISIS in Syria. You do or should understand that ISIS is also fighting Assad. So wiping out ISIS in Syria would be lending a helping hand to the Assad. You righties are so fucking underinformed of what is really going on and what Obama is up against. ....the liberals and the media are not taking isis seriously... they are more worried about calling them names than they are of the wholesale slaughter committed by isis.... that is one of the biggest problems... ignoring isis is only going to make them stronger.. they are going to kill more and more people, they are going to get strong militarily by taking over other countries military bases.... all the while the liberal media is worried about calling them evil.. |
|
|
|
And the liberals, the administration and the liberal media is not taking isis and their terrorist threats seriously... the NY times feels that isis should not be labeled as evil... or terrroists... or monsters.... cnn even questions labeling isis as evil... and then you read the obama administrations take on isis.... George Stephanopoulos Frets Over U.S. Taking Action Against ISIS: ‘Is There A Danger Here of Overreacting?’ http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeffrey-meyer/2014/08/24/george-stephanopoulos-frets-over-us-taking-action-against-isis-there-#ixzz3BPfLwoBx This Week with George Stephanopoulos
August 24, 2014
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: On the bigger questions, Bill Kristol, it struck me how quickly this has all moved. From ISIS being a minor threat, the president talking about it several months ago as the junior varsity, to now an imminent threat, the words of Chuck Hagel, to the United States. And I guess I wonder, is there a danger here of overreacting?
BILL KRISTOL: I wish there were but I think the fundamental danger remains underreaction. Back in January when the president said to David Remnick, we have decimated Al Qaeda, core Al Qaeda as they like to say. It's just the JV now. The ambassador, our ambassador to Iraq, appointed by President Obama, Robert Beecroft was telling Martha Raddatz, she reported this on your show and here on ABC that we have a huge problem. There’s this group ISIS that has taken over Fallujah and Ramadi and has ambitions to go north. Someone asked the ambassador, I believer in private, well what is the White House doing about this? He kind of shrugged. So I think the president, I would like a little overreaction by the president now. He's coming back from his vacation. He should go to Congress right away to get an authorization. But meanwhile, he's acting under the War Powers Act and he shouldn’t wait. He shouldn't wait. There's a huge amount of bombing and damage that could be done to ISIS tomorrow if the president orders it.
STEPHANOPOULOS: And given the president's rhetoric on Thursday, a cancer on the world, there’s going to be a dramatic escalation of action as well to match that rhetoric.
PEGGY NOONAN: Yeah, what was very interesting the past week, was the comments of Chuck Hagel. Not a burly, pro-war figure. Someone who has been skeptical in the past saying, this is the biggest and worst thing we have seen in a long time. The comments of General Dempsey saying, essentially the same thing. Something big and bad is happening here. It's part of the reason the president was so criticized for not saying what, in fact, I think Hagel and Dempsey said. Do you know what I mean? They were making presidential-type statements.
isis is slaughtering people left and right... threatening everyone... especially the us.... they are savagely creating an islamic caliphate... they have now taken over a syrian military base and have access to weapons they didn't have before.... and yet the liberals don't really see any danger.... |
|
|
|
|
This is so sort of awful. Little kids can get hold of these sodas. If they have $10, which it seems they do. I for one don't like this.
|
|
|
|
You got a pretty fucked up prospective if you think acting in your own interests is evil.
It may have evil consequences, it may be benign, or it may actually also be in the other party's best interest as well. A blanket statement "if you act in your own best interest and then you're evil" is just stupid.
I'm not stating 'if'. Perhaps I'm changing definitions. I'm saying that being evil is just natural. Not you can/will be evil, you ARE evil. This is your natural state. When you leave the mothers womb, you cry because it is in your interest to cry, not for anyone else. And you maintain this individuality. You just ARE evil. Try not to read too much into the baby reference, it's just an example. |
|
|
|
You are free to believe all life is evil. I am free to believe the opposite. What is more important? Your belief or mine? Neither. What is more important is the freedom for both of us to express our divergent viewpoints...
is god the inventor of the evil, or is it lucifer that was the one that done it ?on average is evil about ... dark greenish, 20 fahrenheit, hydrogen sulphide smell, and misty ?i thought i saw one once ? Um, Religion is good in that it unites people. But evil in that people think religion revolves around the individual. As far as God is concerned (I'm an atheist), he created us with 'original sin'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_manI've been thinking about this concept for the last few days. I truly believe we are all evil selfish individuals, and the only good that can come from us, is cooperation. |
|
|
|
But plants are evil though? What about simple organisms? Single cell organisms? Are viruses evil?
A quick google search turned up http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/v/virus.htmThe study of viruses is known as virology, and those who study viruses are known as virologists. It has been argued extensively whether viruses are living organisms.
Most virologists consider them non-living, as they do not meet all the criteria of the generally accepted definition of life.
They are similar to obligate intracellular parasites as they lack the means for self-reproduction outside a host cell, but unlike parasites, viruses are generally not considered to be true living organisms.
A primary reason is that viruses do not possess a cell membrane or metabolise on their own - characteristics of all living organisms. http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife...viruslive.htmlViruses straddle the definition of life. They lie somewhere between supra molecular complexes and very simple biological entities. Viruses contain some of the structures and exhibit some of the activities that are common to organic life, but they are missing many of the others. In general, viruses are entirely composed of a single strand of genetic information encased within a protein capsule. Viruses lack most of the internal structure and machinery which characterize 'life', including the biosynthetic machinery that is necessary for reproduction. In order for a virus to replicate it must infect a suitable host cell Perhaps see also http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ses-alive-2004http://news.discovery.com/human/heal...ems-130227.htmDefine "obligate intracellular parasite". As it is the Christmas season and many kisses will be snatched under the obligatory mistletoe hung over a doorway, does it also qualify? I have never seen mistletoe survive on its own, absent a parasitic host. I'm neither a biologist or virologist, so I leave the discussion to them .So, the individual is evil. Cooperation among individuals is goodness. Reminds me of Marine Corps Boot Camp. How they would mentally drain you in order to strip away your individuality. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
