Romney's birth certificate remark was merely a dog whistle for the birthers saying "I'm on your side." but something he could pass off as a stiff attempt at humor to others.
It used to be that Republicans and Democrats were willing to compromise to help get things done. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil would sit down together over a drink and hash out a compromise. On the day that Obama was inaugurated a number of national Republican leaders got together and decided to say no to anything Obama tried to accomplish regardless of whether it was a reasonable idea or not. To me that borders on being treasonous.
In my state I've always had to sign the poll book when I go to vote and they can compare that signature against the the one on my registration card. It's very difficult to fake another persons signature.
You know, one of the points of emphasis by the Justice Department during the Bush II administration was to seek out all of that voter fraud you seem to think exists. Despite pushing the United States Attorney's hard to seek out and prosecute voter fraud they only came up with a handful of cases, not enough to affect any election but one decided by 1 or 2 votes.
The proper time to determine if a person has a legal right to vote or not is when they register to vote, not at the polls. Your voter registration card and your signature should be all you need at the polls.
If there was any evidence that people without the legal right to vote were doing it in large numbers I'd be more sympathetic to the voter ID laws but an exhaustive search only found 10 cases of voter fraud that presenting ID at the polls would have prevented since 2000. Why would Republicans who have such a problem with over regulation want to increase regulations in this area? It's simply because the people who are inconvenienced and/or disenfranchised by these regulation are more likely to vote for Democrats.
Obama did not promise to reduce the debt. He's smart enough to know that's not possible in the short run. What he promised to do is reduce the deficit and he has done that. Do you understand the difference between the debt and the deficit?
No, rebellions don't come from religious moral outrage generally. Religions simply are a power base usually separate from the secular powers that get used by the rebels as an organizing base.
The currently state of Milankovitch Cycles is most similar to what occurred during the interglacial period around 430,000 years ago. That interglacial lasted about 30,000 years. It doesn't appear the onset of the next glacial cycle is imminent yet, probably more like 20,000 years from now from all I've heard.
You're confusing this paper with the one a few weeks ago about the melting on Greenland. What you said was true about the Greenland paper but that doesn't apply to this on on the Antarctic Peninsula.
Mass extinctions are associated with drastic change whatever the direction it goes. For instance the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum was a time of mass extinction.
These fuckers will not stop until every last vestige of thousands of years of western scientific and moral thought has been wiped clean to make room for their idiotic beliefs.
Hell we have fossils of miners that were made in the 1800s that look to be a few million years old.
Now that's just plain silly. Any miner's bones laid down in the 1800's wouldn't be mineralized like several million year old bones are. You wouldn't even need radiocarbon dating to tell the difference.
Now when the bird becomes a vegetable, or the even half vegetable half bird please let me know. Even if the bird became a different bird, that would be pretty damn cool. Parrot becomes Eagle, right on man! That is what we have not seen, and lack evidence for. We have not seen this in any case, even single celled organisms. A plant does not become an animal, and an amoeba does not become a paramecium.. ever! That is the proof missing for the theory of evolution.
That just shows how little you understand about how evolution really works. There is no step function where one species produces a completely different species in a single generation. Instead a beneficial mutation occurs in an individual and spreads out through the population over many generations. Rinse and repeat and eventually you have a new species.
No problem, that happens in discussions like this. It's a part of the Poe's Law spectrum, it's hard to tell how serious a person in on the internet unless they make it blatantly obvious.
My position on this is that until the fetus is capable of living independently of the womb it's nobody's business but the woman involved, hopefully with the father involved too. After that the health of the mother still trumps the rights of the fetus.
Here I was just trying to be funny playing off the "ten foot pole" comment of twocows and you go all serious on me. For the record both rape and false accusations of rape are serious crimes, is suspect the former is more serious for women and the later is more serious for men.
Maybe it just has something to do with the fact that sometimes consensual unprotected coitus is an actual attempt to get pregnant by the couple. Then they're more likely to try and time it to increase the odds.
Slashdot Mirror
Romney's birth certificate remark was merely a dog whistle for the birthers saying "I'm on your side." but something he could pass off as a stiff attempt at humor to others.
A federal judge just struck down Nevada's "None of the above" ballot option.
It used to be that Republicans and Democrats were willing to compromise to help get things done. Ronald Reagan and Tip O'Neil would sit down together over a drink and hash out a compromise. On the day that Obama was inaugurated a number of national Republican leaders got together and decided to say no to anything Obama tried to accomplish regardless of whether it was a reasonable idea or not. To me that borders on being treasonous.
An easily exploitable system. If we were talking a computer program, what would everyone here be saying?
Like electronic DRE voting machines?
Proud of my school!
Shouldn't the time you have to prove you are eligible to vote be when you register to vote, not when you actually exercise your right to vote?
Please provide evidence of Democrats screaming about massive voter fraud. More likely they're complaining about election fraud.
In my state I've always had to sign the poll book when I go to vote and they can compare that signature against the the one on my registration card. It's very difficult to fake another persons signature.
You know, one of the points of emphasis by the Justice Department during the Bush II administration was to seek out all of that voter fraud you seem to think exists. Despite pushing the United States Attorney's hard to seek out and prosecute voter fraud they only came up with a handful of cases, not enough to affect any election but one decided by 1 or 2 votes.
The proper time to determine if a person has a legal right to vote or not is when they register to vote, not at the polls. Your voter registration card and your signature should be all you need at the polls.
If there was any evidence that people without the legal right to vote were doing it in large numbers I'd be more sympathetic to the voter ID laws but an exhaustive search only found 10 cases of voter fraud that presenting ID at the polls would have prevented since 2000. Why would Republicans who have such a problem with over regulation want to increase regulations in this area? It's simply because the people who are inconvenienced and/or disenfranchised by these regulation are more likely to vote for Democrats.
Obama did not promise to reduce the debt. He's smart enough to know that's not possible in the short run. What he promised to do is reduce the deficit and he has done that. Do you understand the difference between the debt and the deficit?
No, rebellions don't come from religious moral outrage generally. Religions simply are a power base usually separate from the secular powers that get used by the rebels as an organizing base.
The currently state of Milankovitch Cycles is most similar to what occurred during the interglacial period around 430,000 years ago. That interglacial lasted about 30,000 years. It doesn't appear the onset of the next glacial cycle is imminent yet, probably more like 20,000 years from now from all I've heard.
You're confusing this paper with the one a few weeks ago about the melting on Greenland. What you said was true about the Greenland paper but that doesn't apply to this on on the Antarctic Peninsula.
Mass extinctions are associated with drastic change whatever the direction it goes. For instance the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum was a time of mass extinction.
These fuckers will not stop until every last vestige of thousands of years of western scientific and moral thought has been wiped clean to make room for their idiotic beliefs.
Looks like you got a head start on that.
It's a matter of cost/benefit. If spending $4 quadrillion saves you $6 quadrillion in costs then it's worth it.
I don't think that word means what you think it does. 10,000 years is 10 millenia.
Hell we have fossils of miners that were made in the 1800s that look to be a few million years old.
Now that's just plain silly. Any miner's bones laid down in the 1800's wouldn't be mineralized like several million year old bones are. You wouldn't even need radiocarbon dating to tell the difference.
Now when the bird becomes a vegetable, or the even half vegetable half bird please let me know. Even if the bird became a different bird, that would be pretty damn cool. Parrot becomes Eagle, right on man! That is what we have not seen, and lack evidence for. We have not seen this in any case, even single celled organisms. A plant does not become an animal, and an amoeba does not become a paramecium.. ever! That is the proof missing for the theory of evolution.
That just shows how little you understand about how evolution really works. There is no step function where one species produces a completely different species in a single generation. Instead a beneficial mutation occurs in an individual and spreads out through the population over many generations. Rinse and repeat and eventually you have a new species.
And $100,000* wasted trying to educate you.
*My wild ass guess at how much is spent per person for a K-12 education.
No problem, that happens in discussions like this. It's a part of the Poe's Law spectrum, it's hard to tell how serious a person in on the internet unless they make it blatantly obvious.
My position on this is that until the fetus is capable of living independently of the womb it's nobody's business but the woman involved, hopefully with the father involved too. After that the health of the mother still trumps the rights of the fetus.
Here I was just trying to be funny playing off the "ten foot pole" comment of twocows and you go all serious on me. For the record both rape and false accusations of rape are serious crimes, is suspect the former is more serious for women and the later is more serious for men.
Maybe it just has something to do with the fact that sometimes consensual unprotected coitus is an actual attempt to get pregnant by the couple. Then they're more likely to try and time it to increase the odds.
It definitely is rape if you're using a ten foot pole.