Care to provide your source? A reference? Anything?
Unfortunately, I cannot (which makes my reference, as valid as it may be to me, nothing better than hearsay). It was about eight to ten years ago, and the book was something about global warming. I do not remember the author. All I know for sure is that the forward to the book was done by Al Gore. I looked on Amazon, hoping to find something that would jog my memory, but did not.
Unless, of course American soldiers were guilty of war crimes, which they were.
...in which case, they should be prosecuted. Kerry confessed that he was guilty of the same crimes in 1971. If so, let's start with him. If he's not guilty of the same war crimes that he accused American forces of, then that makes him a liar. It's one or the other.
Interesting, but having nothing to do with my point. He is indebted to, and has often worked for and accepted favors from a number of rich investors from a country that he, himself has stated is guilty of funding and sponsoring terrorism.Whether or not we buy much of our gas from them, is immaterial.
I think it has everything to do with your point. Kerry wants people to think that every time you fill your gas tank, you're lining the pockets of the Saudi royal family, and that the voters can do something about it by voting for Kerry (that's what his ads say). Nothing could be further than the truth. Sure, Saudi Arabia is part of OPEC, but so are Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran, and several Middle East countries (which cover the majority of the remaining 75% of the world's oil that Saudi Arabia doesn't provide)... What about THEIR pockets being lined by Bush's alleged oil deals? I don't hear a lot about that.
Thank you captain obvious.
Stating the obvious is an American trait. Ask any Brit.
But why are we making more and more things jail-able offenses, especially things that in most countries are considered either legal, or purely a heath concern? It is because if there isn't a war on something, like drugs, pornography, or terror (a mythical, unwinnable war) then there would not be any reason for the growth of the government and bureaucratic bodies.
Interesting... Big Government tends to be a favorite of the Democrats. Something like a "war on drugs" is, I think, a misnomer. A war on terrorism is a bit more complicated. It's not like you can point to one particular place on a map, and declare that if/when that place is conquered, then the problem will be solved. It's not like that at all. Terrorism is encouraged when the people doing it are encouraged and supported. They get their strength by causing fear to get what they want. A perfect example of this is what happened in Spain recently, with the train bombing. Terrorists claimed that they would do something if Spain did not pull their forces out. When the reigning government did not waiver, the terrorists bombed a train, killing a couple hundred innocent people. This scared the crap out of the Spaniards, and in the election that was held, the opposition won by a big margin. THEY gave the terrorists exactly what they wanted, and the Spanish forces were pulled. If Kerry wins, I'm afraid that he'll do the same thing. Doing that will do several things: (1) it will make the United States out to be a laughingstock of the Arab world. They will figure that in order to make the American government afraid, all they have to do is blow up a couple buildings, kill a few thousand people, and blame it on a terrorist group. The Americans, remembering what happened after 9/11, would not quickly enter into another Iraq, and the terrorists will be off scot-free, because the rest of the world will think that the US had it coming. (2) No other nation in the world will believe the US if the government promises to support freedom in that country. George Bush the Elder almost lost the US credibility in 1992 because the Iraqis thought that we w
Please read what Snopes has to say about the old Gore claiming to have invented the internet crap.
That is interesting, and makes the point, if that were my source for my understanding of Gore's claim. It was not, as I have already explained.
I am no champion of Kerry, or the Democrats, but to claim they are hate mongering (any more so that the Republican party) is just plain ignorant.
Really? Have you heard the crap that Gore has been spouting in the last year? He's been more animated that I've ever seen him. He's been proclaiming that Bush is working against the lower and middle classes (which in itself is a divisive claim). Kerry has been trying to make himself out to be a hero of the Vietnam war. Kids these days accept that blindly, while people my age (and older) remember that when he came back, he immediately went into the limelight, proclaiming American soldiers to be guilty of war crimes. Kerry is no hero. He has no regard whatsoever for veterans that have sacrificed their lives at the request of their country. Michael Moore, the anti-Bush Love Child, does nothing but spout half-truths that are designed to encourage hate. If you doubt that, go ask anyone that has seen Fahrenheit 9/11 what they thought of Bush after seeing it. The minority of people will point out that there were discrepancies between what really happened and what Moore tells as fact. The majority, who accepted Moore's movie as gospel, will tell you that they hate Bush more than ever before. The Democratic Party's effort to bring Social Security (an issue that has existed for some 40 years, and neither side has any real interest in fixing) into the fray with scare tactics is just one sad example that rears its ugly head every four years.
Yeah, the Republican Party has its bouts of mud slinging. They have nothing as bad as what the pro-Kerry camp are pushing, though.
Do you remember the Bush quote where he tells a room full of the ultra-rich upper class that while others call them the elite, he calls them his base?
No, I don't. I'm not rich (hard to be so when one was out of work for two years, getting by while doing several part-time jobs to make ends meet), and there are some things (oddly enough) from the core of the Democratic Party's platform that I could accept, but I do not believe that Kerry represents those beliefs at all.
Nor do his blatant connections with the Saudi Arabian royalty,
Have you noticed how much of the oil America consumes actually comes from Saudi Arabia? Although Saudi Arabia has 25% of the world's proved resources, they provide only a fraction of this to the United States. In fact, snopes.com has an interesting piece on the origins of gasoline, and whether or not it funds terrorist groups.
or his families money having come from collusion with the Nazis.
What's this got to do with anything? It has as much to do with anything as the idea that the Kennedy family got its money from running moonshine during the Prohibition. It's a non-factor today. Blaming a person for the actions of his (or her) ancestors is, quite plainly, stupid and ignorant. People are responsible for their own actions.
it seems like there are a lot of people I would trust more to run this country than Bush
I agree on this point, but unfortunately, none of them are running for President of the United States.
We would probably already have had one, if the government had not locked up all of the poor adult males.You don't think the war on drugs is really about helping people do you? Ever wonder why a larger percentage of Americans are locked up than any other industrialized nation (except China)?
This is almost laughable.
A larger percentage of Americans are jailed each year because
I hope that people who vote for this clown like sending people to die for the fsck-ups of this incompetent administration because that is *precisely* what's happening.
I think you got my point, but I'm not certain you understand how strongly I am making it. The EU has no business whatsoever trying to dictate policy to the United States. The United Nations doesn't, either. They can't enforce their own crap, and it takes more than a year for their beloved leader to suddenly come to the realization that the US did something illegal (which I don't belive for a second, but I think you knew that by now).
I am looking around at communities in that bastion of liberty that is Massachusetts, and I see some that are trying to allow non-citizens (legal and illegal immigrants) the "right" to vote. I see this as a threat because it makes it possible for foreign nationals to affect American government. Am I being paranoid? Probably, but that does not mean that smarter minds than mine won't take advantage of it.
Wow, quoting that old FUD sure helps your credibility. Check your sources, stop believing chain-letters.
FUD? I read it myself, in a book that Gore himself wrote the forward for. The bit about the Internet was in that forward, in Gore's own words. I didn't read it in an email or anything else. I was at a bookstore, looking through the selections. One book about the environment boasted a forward by Gore. I picked it up and read it (the forward). I about died laughing when I read about his claim on the Internet. I haven't taken a thing he's said seriously since.
My points are that IRV voting is a better system than we have now, the electoral college is outdated and results in unfair representation,
I disagree. We'll have to leave it at that.
much of the republican party is facist, intolerant, and likely to cause much pain and suffering.
...and the Democrat Party is filled with hate-mongering socialists... Your claim is about as accurate as this, in that neither are true, and you know it. The trick is that Gore and Kerry (and anyone that follows them) proclaim that they are for a united America. The problem is that it's all just talk. Everything they sputter out of their mouths is calculated to divide this nation. Who is it that talks about classes in the US? Democrats. Who is it that is always the first to spout off about Social Security? Democrats. (Never mind that Social Security has needed to be fixed for more than 40 years, and although both parties have had ample time to fix it, neither has.) The list goes on.
I'll go on a limb here and make a prediction: If crap like this keeps going like it is, we'll see a revolt in our lifetime. If it happens, and I hope for both our sakes it doesn't, it'll make the Civil War look like a day at the park.
The entire execution of this confict has been nothing short of a total cluster fsck. From the minute we started "planning", but ignoring the manpower needed to secure the nation, its weapons, or its people; to the time we ignored the pleas of the Iraqi people to give them jobs, while handing them over to firms like Haliburton; to today when we have heard that we can't find a couple of hundred of thousand *tons* of high explosives; this administration has shown its incompetence.
There are reports now that these explosives disappeared before American/Allied forces even set foot in Iraq. You simply cannot blame that on Bush, no matter how screwed up he is. If you thnk you can, you've got some serious reality issues that need to be addressed, and quick.
Now we have a President that (supposedly) has good intentions but takes no responsibility for seeing them carried out properly,
When did Bush ever deny responsibility for anything he's done? In 2000, a lawer in Maine (a Gore supporter; big surprise) tried to throw a wrench in the works by making it known that Bush had been picked up for OUI. Did Bush deny it? NO. He admitted to it and stated that he learned from the mistake. With Iraq, Gore, Moore, and Kerry insist that Bush made a mistake going there. They have done absolutely nothing to prove that any other approach to the problem could have been made. Moore is a complete ass, and is not even qualified to participate in a discussion on this subject. Gore, having been a VP, at least theoretically, has a clue what can or cannot be done. He hasn't said anything useful either, but he's done a damn good job of parroting Moore. Kerry has just been repeating Moore and Gore. Just because they proclaimed that Bush made mistakes (and people like you are gullible enough to accept the statement without evidence) doesn't make it a mistake, and I think that is why Bush hasn't apologized for Iraq. I think that if Bush did apologize, the terrorists (like al-Zarqawi and bin Laden, if he's still alive) would take that as a sign of weakness and push back with a strength and determination that they haven't had since this stuff started.
nor does he deal with the people who made the bad execution decisions in the first place.
Really? How do you know? Are you expecting a personal memo from the President of the United States, saying something like "I thought I would drop you a line and let you know that so-and-so got his head handed to him on a silver platter, and that other guy won't have any problems with constipation for a while, because he got his ass reamed. Love, The Prez"? Just because you don't see a big deal of it in the press doesn't mean that something didn't happen. Sure, the Press are a nosey lot, but they can't follow everything.
I hope that people who vote for this clown like sending people to die for the fsck-ups of this incompetent administration because that is *precisely* what's happening.
Well, until I see your smiling face on a poster, volunteering to run for the office (you seem to think you know so bloody much), I'll take anything you say with a grain of salt. In the mean time, I'll be at the voting booth bright and early on November 2nd, in Massachusetts no less, casting MY vote for George W. Bush. I'll even be smiling, and proud to be doing it. If you want, I'll tell you exactly where my district votes. If you care to do anything about it (besides spouting off your mouth), you're welcome to try.
...is "If you want to hear that I will do it, then I'll tell you that I will look into it. What you don't know is that this will involve asking one or two people who already don't want to do anything about it what they think, so the long-term answer is 'No, so go away.'"...
It's typical of politicians to say that stuff, expecially if they're trying to get into office.
With John Kerry SPECIFICALLY, bear in mind that he has a very hard time giving a straight solid answer. He does not seem to have any convictions of his own. He seems to prefer changing his mind on a whim over anything. It's pathetic.
With Bush, you can like him or hate him. Either way, you know exactly where he stands on a given issue, and if he decides to do something, he doesn't back down from it just because some dolt that want his job is proclaiming that he's made a mistake. (NEWS FLASH! President Bush is human! He's going to make mistakes!)
Kerry's recent attempt to pin this weapons disappearance on Bush is one of desperation. Bush wasn't there to guard it himself. If there's anyone to blame, it's the people who were supposed to be guarding it, and if the issue was manpower, then throw their commander into the mix, too. You can't really go much further than that. Wouldn't it be interesting, if the place was supposed to be guarded by Iraqis? Whose fault would it be then?
When will the world realize that the only solution that will be tolerated by Christian facists is the death of every person of Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, atheist, and/or any other religious bent other than Christian?
Where did this come from? The last time anyone proclaiming to be Christian was hell-bent on genocide to the scale you describe was the Catholics in the middle ages, when men went to "fight for Jerusalem". Hasn't happened since. Also, being a Christian myself, I can speak with great assurance that Christianity does not seek the death of anyone.
Historically Islam has been a much more peaceful religion than Christianity, and much more tolerant of other religions.
Really? Are you familiar with the history of Islam? in/around 630AD, Mohammed and his armies made quite a rush of much of North Africa and the Middle East. It took them a while, but it basically amounted to "convert or die". In the Koran itself, adherents are encouraged to kill infidels on sight. Good thing for me that they don't follow their holy book to the letter.
The best recipe for creating more terrorists and suicide bombers that I can think of is flying across the ocean, invading a country full of people of another religion, blowing up large numbers of them, including innocent civilians, taking some captive, torturing them and forcing them to perform immoral sexual acts, bleeding their economy dry with reparations (see Germany after WWII), and installing a known agent of your military as their new leader. Gee that won't make anyone mad enough to try to kill us. The more of them we kill, the more of their friends an relatives give up hope, and live only for hate and revenge. (see Vietnam).
Dude. You have issues.
You have no idea why we went to Vietnam, do you? We were asked by the South Vietnamese government to help them fight off the Communist armies of the North Vietnamese. We basically got dragged into a civil war.
You are greatly mistaken in assuming that the crimes committed in ONE PRISON were a recurrent theme across Iraq. It didn't happen, and you have no proof that it did. If it were widespread, we would have heard about it.
On top of that, you might like to be reminded that WWII was started by Germany, and that is why they were forced to carry the load for their reconstruction, just like Japan (for the same reason).
If you are going to make wild accusations and comparisons, at least prove that you paid attention in history class. (Of course, if they didn't cover this stuff in your school, I'll let it slide just this once, but that's a problem for another discussion.)
Unfair representation is unfair representation, and just because it has been that way for a long time, does not make it fair.
In that case, we better get on the ball and let the British Houses and the EU have a voting seat in the United States Congress-- They aren't fairly represented!
Well there is your problem, you seem to be getting all your news by watching TV.
Methinks thou dost assume too much. I don't get to watch more than a half hour or so of TV. I get my news from radio, Internet, and newspapers, thank you very little.
Gore declared Bush the winner quickly in an attempt to avoid a big legal battle and to keep from undermining the election process.
No, he conceeded the race because he was watching CBS (and other networks) proclaim Bush the winner by a large margin. When the votes were actually counted, Gore saw that it was too close to just throw away, and withdrew his concession. The rest is history (except for Al Gore and his lackeys, who are STILL bitter about the whole thing).
He may or may not have done the right thing.
With Gore, it's hard to tell. He claims to have been responsible for the creation of the Internet, he was among the many that proclaimed the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" to be prophetic in what could happen if we didn't take better care for the environment, and he seems to have a disturbing infatuation with chads. (It was Congress that funded DARPA, when Gore was a senator. Brighter minds than can normally be found in Washington did the actual work. The movie has been heralded by several scientists as 'impossible, unless several laws of physics were broken or suspended'. Whoever designed the ballot that had chads on it should be beaten severely.) Unfortunately for Gore, the odds are against him.
WTF are you talking about? I must have missed something, I don't remember Perot ever being elected president.
He wasn't. He did run for the office twice, though. The first time, he managed to get something like 14% (or was it 20%?) of the vote, and it scared the crap out of the Democrats and Republicans for about six months. The second time he ran for the office, he went insane. On July 15, 1996, he started making wild accusations that the CIA (and other covert agencies) were out to sabotage his daughter's wedding. The connection that you missed between Perot and your hypothetical representation of President Bush was the wild, baseless claims of subterfuge.
Supporters of Bush and his policies have more in common with the Christians of the Inquisition that tortured and murdered those poor ignorant jews for their own good, than with any real followers of Jesus.
Perhaps you should reread the history of the Inquisition period. They targeted anyone that was suspected of heresy against the Romish Church. If a person dared to believe something that was not sanctioned by the Pope (and the Inquisitors caught wind of it), they were (generally) tortured until they confessed, then killed. Comparing any of today's Christians to the Inquisitors shows a resounding ignorance of history.
Try taking a few recent republican speeches and swapping muslim/arab/terrorist with jew/foreigner/insurrectionist and then comparing them to some of the early Nazi party speeches.
...and paint a little black moustache on Al Gore's upper lip, change all references to Bush and the GOP to Jews and Israel, translate it to German, and you've got Hitler himself. What's your point?
I just explained why the system is broken, in fact you quoted it.
That doesn't prove the EC system to be bad. It proves the necessity to have a good method of casting and counting ballots.
By your logic, if I couldn't get to slashdot at all, then the DNS system must be broken. You'd be ignoring the fact that my cable modem is powered off. If you fix the intermediate problem (that of turning on the modem), then you would see that the DNS (and, by my example, the EC) wasn't broken after all; it works just fine.
it bad because of computing errors, which instead if getting a few wrong votes, will - with the corrupt EC system - give you a few wrong STATES.
You're making the assumption that the EC system is broken or "bad". Prove to me why that is. Your say-so isn't enough.
I like the idea of making each state's Electoral votes proportional, on the same line as the popular vote in that state. For example, if 40% of the population of a state favored Candidate A, 45% Candidate B, and 15% Candidate C, then the electoral votes that the state has would be divided accordingly (with any necessary rounding, as defined by that state).
The problem with a popular-vote-only system is that states with a high population (like California) would be able to dominate over a huge number of states that disagreed. It isn't fair at all, and I think that this sort of problem was foreseen when the whole EC idea was put forward.
Are you still dwelling on that? Give it up, dude! It's DONE. Popular vote does not guarantee electoral votes! If it did, then states like California would get to decide every election, by sheer population numbers alone. That's why the Founding Fathers put the whole EC bit in place, so that no one state could dominate over all the others.
after a shady recount in a state governed by his brother
Oh, please... The video clips that are used by the news channels these days when talking about Florida's role in the 2000 election always show people poring over the ballots with magnifying glasses, looking for Gore's pet chads. Gore whined so much over that whole fiasco that I had cheese cravings for weeks.
After the election if Bush goes on TV and says, "Sorry we had to invalidate the results because a secret report from the CIA says terrorists rigged the election. I will remain president until this situation is resolved. " Most people will shrug and go back to watching Friends re-runs and eating low-carb twinkies.
Heh... You mean if Bush starts acting like H. Ross Perot? That's a good one!
There are too many problems with computerized voting NOW. Why should I think that something as complex as IRV (or most of the other alternate voting methods out there, for that matter) would go without a hitch? Like Communism, it looks good on paper, but it probably will not work well in practice.
If Congress wants to play around with the voting methods, they should to it on an off-year. People are polar enough now that if the election went either way, and the cause was percieved to be the tweaking in the voting methods, then there would be riots in the streets. If people are willing to riot over something as stupid and (relatively) meaningless as a sports event, imagine how they would react to something like an election...
On the other hand, I don't see a big problem with shifting the EC to a proportional system, like Maine has already (and Colorado voters are deciding on this year). That's a matter that is best left up to the states, though.
I won't deny the possibility that you're repeating some kind of spin invented by Rove to explain the incoherent spluttering of the Commander-In-Chief last Thursday.
No, i'm not. I watched the debate last week, and I came out of it thinking that Bush blubbered his way through. Kerry was much more organized, but I found his smirks annoying.
Screw it. You want my thoughts? Read my journal. I'm getting tired of typing this stuff over and over again.
... Again, in case you didn't get it...it's a PEN!...
Apparently, YOU didn't get it.
Section 5, pages 4-5 of the binding "Memorandum of Understanding" that was negotiated and agreed upon by both political campaigns states:
"No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate.... Each candidate must submit to the staff of the Commission prior to the debate all such paper and any pens or pencils with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and the staff or commission will place such paper, pens and pencils on the podium..."
There was to be nothing brought in by either candidate. There would be the clothes on his back. Whatever was in his pocket (by "his", I mean either candidate), stays there. Kerry didn't obey the rule. He broke the rules. QED.
As I mentioned in my journal, it doesn't matter if it was a love note from Theresa, a pen, a or crib notes-- "no... tangible things" means that it wasn't allowed. The only pens they were allowed to use were the ones that the staff or commission put there before it began.
heh. I suppose you'll deny the POSSIBILITY that the laptops stolen from one of Bush's campaign offices could end up in the hands of Kerry's people (assuming, of course, that they weren't the perps)?
what... does any of this have ANYTHING to do with who we want to be President?
Everything.
I've seen the video, and it's very clear that Kerry pulled something out of his jacket, which violates the rules. I've seen a picture that is supposed to support the claim that Bush had some sort of hearing aid/receiver, but I didn't see it.
What does it mean? Based on what I've seen so far, Kerry is showing a disregard for the rules. There are some who will proclaim from the towers that this is "situation normal" for John Kerry. I think that disregard for the rules of the debate reflects very poorly on Kerry's character.
If Kerry can't follow something as stupid as an agreement on how a debate will be conducted,what else will he fail to follow? How could we trust him to do the right thing when something more important comes up? Kerry is the sort of guy that will have no problem doing whatever makes him look good. He will have no problem doing whatever will save his neck... Everyone else's neck be damned. John Kerry is only looking for one thing: Glory for John Kerry. He cares for nobody else.
He jumps on Bush for the number of countries that started this whole mess in Iraq, but I don't seem to see a whole lot of countries (like France) stating that they would be looking forward to working with Kerry if he won the presidency; in fact, I have read several reports stating exactly the opposite. He won't have the support he says he will have. If you think he will, you've not been paying attention.
Nobody that values American sovereignty and the American way of life wants Kerry in the White House. The only people I have seen so far that want Kerry for president are EITHER terrorists OR people that hate Bush (and are extremely bitter about their loss in 2000). I doubt there are any people that really support Kerry based on who he is and what he believes. (If there are, I hope they can share the basis for their beliefs with the rest of us, because Kerry has been doing a piss-poor job of letting on that he has any.)
Running the country is NOT the same as playing a game. In StarCraft it is only you running all the forces. In the Real World you have LOTS of people to work with.
I believe he did differentiate reality from StarCraft, and it was only the point of "Overextention is Bad" that he was trying to make:
Let's look at this like a game of Starcraft......While Starcraft is a far reach from the real world, my point is that overextending yourself is bad.
Without getting into it too much, I think that the one point was made with an example that many are familiar with.
I scares me to think that people would actually credit Bush with an Osama capture. He, himself, did nothing - it would all be the work of troops or foreign fighters. Seems to me that the blame for failure always goes to the guy on top but the credit is given to the men who were actually responsible. Look at Iraq. People blame all of the bad things on Saddam, not his henchmen who enforced his policies.
This is an excellent point. Bush is on record that he prefered to leave the bulk of the decision-making (details of events in Iraq and Afghanistan) in the hands of his generals in the field. This means that except for the obvious points involving their presence in the theatre, the generals are either doing their job (when things go well) or failing (when things are hosed). Responsibility is still the president's, either way, but it's only right to give credit where it's due.
I think it applies to more than just that, though. When Senator Kerry (as an example) criticizes President Bush about spending, why does anyone blindly accept his commentary? The Constitution clearly states that Congress is responsible for paying debts (see below). The reason for any failure of monetary support for the military in the Iraqi and Afghan theatres should be explained by Senator Kerry, not President Bush......unless, of course, Congress sent a spending bill to the president and he vetoed it. I believe this not to be the case, though.
There are many things that go on in American Politics that Congress and the President are responsible for, but I think that there are some (like I mentioned above) where Congress carries the bulk of the burden, yet some (like Senator Kerry) are trying to pin on President Bush. I don't mind blaming Bush for his failings, but I am annoyed when the president (of either party) gets blamed for the actions or inactions of the sitting Congress. Senator Kerry has demonstrated his skill at debates. If he has a better solution, and that solution must originate in Congress, why doesn't he do something about it himself while he's in a position to do it? Last time I checked, the president is able to sign or veto bills put before him, but he cannot originate bills himself.
-------------
My point of Congress' responsibility for the purse of the United States is based on the following:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;
Article I, Section 8, Clause 18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law;
Blah, blah, blah. I mention that I am amused at your rambling, decide not to waste any more time trying to get you to see that you may not actually know all the answers, and you think I declared victory? Hardly.
I've wasted precious time trying to talk sense to a pompous git that doesn't realize that his "most-holy science" doesn't hold all the answers, who declares people with faith in God as basing their faith on a "fallacy", with no proof that it actually is.
Want to see what I consider a "victory" in this conversation? Seeing you reply to this post, just so you can get the last word in.
Honestly, I get better conversations talking to a wall.
That's because you've never asked. You've just presented fallacious arguments against evolution. There isn't much need to respond to that beyond demonstrating that your claims are fallacious.
My whole point is that people (like you) automatically assume that beliefs (usually those of the Christian persuation) are "fallacious", but you expect me to accept that on your say-so. I have not seen sufficient evidence from you or anyone else that demonstrates categorically that what I believe is wrong. You have demonstrated nothing except that you have a severe disdain for people who believe in God (mine or otherwise), simply because it goes against your beliefs.
I can't prove anything regarding the existence of any gods, including the specific one that you happen to believe exists. This, however, does not make your arguments suddenly non-fallacious.
It doesn't make it fallacious, either. To argue otherwise means talking in circles.
So you're saying that scientists in a lab use supernatural methods? What, they invoke divine energies or perform magic rituals? That's a new one on me.
Compared to anything else going on in the world, it may as well be magic. Remember that it wasn't all that long ago that people accused others of being witches, just because they did something that was not generally understood or done. Imposing a characteristic on an animal or person through "scientific" means, when this characteristic would not show on its own, is not "natural". It's playing "what if".
What, because you can't bring yourself to believe it?
No, because it doesn't make any sense. You've done a lot of talking, insulting my beliefs, but you've said nothing in support of your own. You make the pompous fat-headed decision that if you don't believe it, then it's wrong. If you can prove to me that you know so much about the Universe that I am wrong and there is no God, I'd like to hear it now. Otherwise, face the fact that in spite of your delusions, you might actually be wrong. Why won't you believe there is a God? Can't bring yourself to believe it?
Well of course not. It demolishes your argument, so you pretend that it's invalid through your own arbitrary hand-waving. I expect no less from a creationist.
Funny... You've been doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. I expect no less from a godless agnostic. (I don't think there's any such thing as an atheist. Something is a higher power to people like you, even if it's Human.)
"Natural selection" is using the scientific definition of "natural". Switching in the layman's definition to make an argument is dishonest.
There's nothing "natural" about genetic manipulation in a laboratory. That would be like claiming Artificial Intelligence is real intelligence, just because it is.
PETA is a bunch of lunatics
I'm glad I was sitting down for this. We actually found something we agree on!
Natural selection is merely the process of a select genetic group of a population being more successful at passing on their genes due to an advantage provided by their genes within their given environment.
This is the biggest reason I don't believe in Evolution. In order for a human to have evolved from pond scum, an enormous amount of time will have to have passed. Given what astrophysisists claim to be the age of the Universe, this simply could not have happened. Statistically, Evolution is impossible (for one explanation of this, see http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg/btg-179.pdf), because it would have to allow that almost every mutation was dominant and that it was not fatal to the being it occured to. It also assumes that another member of the species found the mutated member "attractive" for mating (if indeed the species in question was at the point of development where two members were required to perpetuate the species).
If humans are controlling the breeding based upon what they think are "desirable" genetic traits, then humans have become an environmental factor. It's still natural selection.
Interesting thought, but I don't accept it. If a force outside of the natural environment affects the species (i.e. human intervention), then it is artificial in nature. If one were to accept your argument, then it would (by proxy) negate pretty-much everything folk like PETA and other environmental protectionists have been arguing for decades. Somehow, I don't think they would take to kindly to that...
-How do you observe anything in the past wise guy? I could say the same thing about your wacko beliefs about a superior being.
You, sir, are a dolt. Where did I say anything about my beliefs in this thread? I didn't. I made a comparison between people who's faith lies in a God, and people who's faith lies in what they can see, hear, and touch. My beliefs were never mentioned.
-The big bang is testable. Check Doppler effect, red shift, cosmic microwave background.
All the Doppler effects show is relative movement. They make no attempt whatsoever to explain the origin of the Universe. The religious folk, on the other hand, have an explanation, even if it is as faulty (from a scientific standpoint of not being repeatable, etc). As for the Big Bang Theory itself, I remember hearing how they can guess (!) at how everything came from one little speck, but there's no explanation where that came from.
-Although the big bang is not repeatable (trus me on this one buddy), the conditions that existed during the big bang may one day be replicated in very small scale.
Were you there when it happened? No? Do you know anyone (personally or otherwise) that was an eye witness to the event? No? Amazing, that you can speak with such authority! The Big Bang theory is just a theory. It's a guess, based on what is observed.
As for evolution by means of natural selection:... -Evolution is testable, there are multiple examples of how human interaction changes species. And see above as well.
Ummm... I thought Natural Selection meant that there was no human intervention? See my next point.
-It is observable. Check the history of the HIV virus. For goodness sake, check the history of dog or cow breeds. Scientists use mutation rate in a daily basis when dealing with bacteria. As for all the fossils, well, honestly, what else do you want?
I want evidence that one species became another. There is lots of evidence of microevolution, which are changes within the species, but that is NOT the same as macroevolution, which is what you're talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Care to provide your source? A reference? Anything?
...in which case, they should be prosecuted. Kerry confessed that he was guilty of the same crimes in 1971. If so, let's start with him. If he's not guilty of the same war crimes that he accused American forces of, then that makes him a liar. It's one or the other.
Unfortunately, I cannot (which makes my reference, as valid as it may be to me, nothing better than hearsay). It was about eight to ten years ago, and the book was something about global warming. I do not remember the author. All I know for sure is that the forward to the book was done by Al Gore. I looked on Amazon, hoping to find something that would jog my memory, but did not.
Unless, of course American soldiers were guilty of war crimes, which they were.
Interesting, but having nothing to do with my point. He is indebted to, and has often worked for and accepted favors from a number of rich investors from a country that he, himself has stated is guilty of funding and sponsoring terrorism.Whether or not we buy much of our gas from them, is immaterial.
I think it has everything to do with your point. Kerry wants people to think that every time you fill your gas tank, you're lining the pockets of the Saudi royal family, and that the voters can do something about it by voting for Kerry (that's what his ads say). Nothing could be further than the truth. Sure, Saudi Arabia is part of OPEC, but so are Venezuela, Nigeria, Iran, and several Middle East countries (which cover the majority of the remaining 75% of the world's oil that Saudi Arabia doesn't provide)... What about THEIR pockets being lined by Bush's alleged oil deals? I don't hear a lot about that.
Thank you captain obvious.
Stating the obvious is an American trait. Ask any Brit.
But why are we making more and more things jail-able offenses, especially things that in most countries are considered either legal, or purely a heath concern? It is because if there isn't a war on something, like drugs, pornography, or terror (a mythical, unwinnable war) then there would not be any reason for the growth of the government and bureaucratic bodies.
Interesting... Big Government tends to be a favorite of the Democrats. Something like a "war on drugs" is, I think, a misnomer. A war on terrorism is a bit more complicated. It's not like you can point to one particular place on a map, and declare that if/when that place is conquered, then the problem will be solved. It's not like that at all. Terrorism is encouraged when the people doing it are encouraged and supported. They get their strength by causing fear to get what they want. A perfect example of this is what happened in Spain recently, with the train bombing. Terrorists claimed that they would do something if Spain did not pull their forces out. When the reigning government did not waiver, the terrorists bombed a train, killing a couple hundred innocent people. This scared the crap out of the Spaniards, and in the election that was held, the opposition won by a big margin. THEY gave the terrorists exactly what they wanted, and the Spanish forces were pulled. If Kerry wins, I'm afraid that he'll do the same thing. Doing that will do several things: (1) it will make the United States out to be a laughingstock of the Arab world. They will figure that in order to make the American government afraid, all they have to do is blow up a couple buildings, kill a few thousand people, and blame it on a terrorist group. The Americans, remembering what happened after 9/11, would not quickly enter into another Iraq, and the terrorists will be off scot-free, because the rest of the world will think that the US had it coming. (2) No other nation in the world will believe the US if the government promises to support freedom in that country. George Bush the Elder almost lost the US credibility in 1992 because the Iraqis thought that we w
Please read what Snopes has to say about the old Gore claiming to have invented the internet crap.
That is interesting, and makes the point, if that were my source for my understanding of Gore's claim. It was not, as I have already explained.
I am no champion of Kerry, or the Democrats, but to claim they are hate mongering (any more so that the Republican party) is just plain ignorant.
Really? Have you heard the crap that Gore has been spouting in the last year? He's been more animated that I've ever seen him. He's been proclaiming that Bush is working against the lower and middle classes (which in itself is a divisive claim). Kerry has been trying to make himself out to be a hero of the Vietnam war. Kids these days accept that blindly, while people my age (and older) remember that when he came back, he immediately went into the limelight, proclaiming American soldiers to be guilty of war crimes. Kerry is no hero. He has no regard whatsoever for veterans that have sacrificed their lives at the request of their country. Michael Moore, the anti-Bush Love Child, does nothing but spout half-truths that are designed to encourage hate. If you doubt that, go ask anyone that has seen Fahrenheit 9/11 what they thought of Bush after seeing it. The minority of people will point out that there were discrepancies between what really happened and what Moore tells as fact. The majority, who accepted Moore's movie as gospel, will tell you that they hate Bush more than ever before. The Democratic Party's effort to bring Social Security (an issue that has existed for some 40 years, and neither side has any real interest in fixing) into the fray with scare tactics is just one sad example that rears its ugly head every four years.
Yeah, the Republican Party has its bouts of mud slinging. They have nothing as bad as what the pro-Kerry camp are pushing, though.
Do you remember the Bush quote where he tells a room full of the ultra-rich upper class that while others call them the elite, he calls them his base?
No, I don't. I'm not rich (hard to be so when one was out of work for two years, getting by while doing several part-time jobs to make ends meet), and there are some things (oddly enough) from the core of the Democratic Party's platform that I could accept, but I do not believe that Kerry represents those beliefs at all.
Nor do his blatant connections with the Saudi Arabian royalty,
Have you noticed how much of the oil America consumes actually comes from Saudi Arabia? Although Saudi Arabia has 25% of the world's proved resources, they provide only a fraction of this to the United States. In fact, snopes.com has an interesting piece on the origins of gasoline, and whether or not it funds terrorist groups.
or his families money having come from collusion with the Nazis.
What's this got to do with anything? It has as much to do with anything as the idea that the Kennedy family got its money from running moonshine during the Prohibition. It's a non-factor today. Blaming a person for the actions of his (or her) ancestors is, quite plainly, stupid and ignorant. People are responsible for their own actions.
it seems like there are a lot of people I would trust more to run this country than Bush
I agree on this point, but unfortunately, none of them are running for President of the United States.
We would probably already have had one, if the government had not locked up all of the poor adult males.You don't think the war on drugs is really about helping people do you? Ever wonder why a larger percentage of Americans are locked up than any other industrialized nation (except China)?
This is almost laughable.
A larger percentage of Americans are jailed each year because
I hope that people who vote for this clown like sending people to die for the fsck-ups of this incompetent administration because that is *precisely* what's happening.
...and the Democrat Party is filled with hate-mongering socialists... Your claim is about as accurate as this, in that neither are true, and you know it. The trick is that Gore and Kerry (and anyone that follows them) proclaim that they are for a united America. The problem is that it's all just talk. Everything they sputter out of their mouths is calculated to divide this nation. Who is it that talks about classes in the US? Democrats. Who is it that is always the first to spout off about Social Security? Democrats. (Never mind that Social Security has needed to be fixed for more than 40 years, and although both parties have had ample time to fix it, neither has.) The list goes on.
I think you got my point, but I'm not certain you understand how strongly I am making it. The EU has no business whatsoever trying to dictate policy to the United States. The United Nations doesn't, either. They can't enforce their own crap, and it takes more than a year for their beloved leader to suddenly come to the realization that the US did something illegal (which I don't belive for a second, but I think you knew that by now).
I am looking around at communities in that bastion of liberty that is Massachusetts, and I see some that are trying to allow non-citizens (legal and illegal immigrants) the "right" to vote. I see this as a threat because it makes it possible for foreign nationals to affect American government. Am I being paranoid? Probably, but that does not mean that smarter minds than mine won't take advantage of it.
Wow, quoting that old FUD sure helps your credibility. Check your sources, stop believing chain-letters.
FUD? I read it myself, in a book that Gore himself wrote the forward for. The bit about the Internet was in that forward, in Gore's own words. I didn't read it in an email or anything else. I was at a bookstore, looking through the selections. One book about the environment boasted a forward by Gore. I picked it up and read it (the forward). I about died laughing when I read about his claim on the Internet. I haven't taken a thing he's said seriously since.
My points are that IRV voting is a better system than we have now, the electoral college is outdated and results in unfair representation,
I disagree. We'll have to leave it at that.
much of the republican party is facist, intolerant, and likely to cause much pain and suffering.
I'll go on a limb here and make a prediction: If crap like this keeps going like it is, we'll see a revolt in our lifetime. If it happens, and I hope for both our sakes it doesn't, it'll make the Civil War look like a day at the park.
The entire execution of this confict has been nothing short of a total cluster fsck. From the minute we started "planning", but ignoring the manpower needed to secure the nation, its weapons, or its people; to the time we ignored the pleas of the Iraqi people to give them jobs, while handing them over to firms like Haliburton; to today when we have heard that we can't find a couple of hundred of thousand *tons* of high explosives; this administration has shown its incompetence.
There are reports now that these explosives disappeared before American/Allied forces even set foot in Iraq. You simply cannot blame that on Bush, no matter how screwed up he is. If you thnk you can, you've got some serious reality issues that need to be addressed, and quick.
Now we have a President that (supposedly) has good intentions but takes no responsibility for seeing them carried out properly,
When did Bush ever deny responsibility for anything he's done? In 2000, a lawer in Maine (a Gore supporter; big surprise) tried to throw a wrench in the works by making it known that Bush had been picked up for OUI. Did Bush deny it? NO. He admitted to it and stated that he learned from the mistake. With Iraq, Gore, Moore, and Kerry insist that Bush made a mistake going there. They have done absolutely nothing to prove that any other approach to the problem could have been made. Moore is a complete ass, and is not even qualified to participate in a discussion on this subject. Gore, having been a VP, at least theoretically, has a clue what can or cannot be done. He hasn't said anything useful either, but he's done a damn good job of parroting Moore. Kerry has just been repeating Moore and Gore. Just because they proclaimed that Bush made mistakes (and people like you are gullible enough to accept the statement without evidence) doesn't make it a mistake, and I think that is why Bush hasn't apologized for Iraq. I think that if Bush did apologize, the terrorists (like al-Zarqawi and bin Laden, if he's still alive) would take that as a sign of weakness and push back with a strength and determination that they haven't had since this stuff started.
nor does he deal with the people who made the bad execution decisions in the first place.
Really? How do you know? Are you expecting a personal memo from the President of the United States, saying something like "I thought I would drop you a line and let you know that so-and-so got his head handed to him on a silver platter, and that other guy won't have any problems with constipation for a while, because he got his ass reamed. Love, The Prez"? Just because you don't see a big deal of it in the press doesn't mean that something didn't happen. Sure, the Press are a nosey lot, but they can't follow everything.
I hope that people who vote for this clown like sending people to die for the fsck-ups of this incompetent administration because that is *precisely* what's happening.
Well, until I see your smiling face on a poster, volunteering to run for the office (you seem to think you know so bloody much), I'll take anything you say with a grain of salt. In the mean time, I'll be at the voting booth bright and early on November 2nd, in Massachusetts no less, casting MY vote for George W. Bush. I'll even be smiling, and proud to be doing it. If you want, I'll tell you exactly where my district votes. If you care to do anything about it (besides spouting off your mouth), you're welcome to try.
...is "If you want to hear that I will do it, then I'll tell you that I will look into it. What you don't know is that this will involve asking one or two people who already don't want to do anything about it what they think, so the long-term answer is 'No, so go away.'"...
It's typical of politicians to say that stuff, expecially if they're trying to get into office.
With John Kerry SPECIFICALLY, bear in mind that he has a very hard time giving a straight solid answer. He does not seem to have any convictions of his own. He seems to prefer changing his mind on a whim over anything. It's pathetic.
With Bush, you can like him or hate him. Either way, you know exactly where he stands on a given issue, and if he decides to do something, he doesn't back down from it just because some dolt that want his job is proclaiming that he's made a mistake. (NEWS FLASH! President Bush is human! He's going to make mistakes!)
Kerry's recent attempt to pin this weapons disappearance on Bush is one of desperation. Bush wasn't there to guard it himself. If there's anyone to blame, it's the people who were supposed to be guarding it, and if the issue was manpower, then throw their commander into the mix, too. You can't really go much further than that. Wouldn't it be interesting, if the place was supposed to be guarded by Iraqis? Whose fault would it be then?
When will the world realize that the only solution that will be tolerated by Christian facists is the death of every person of Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, atheist, and/or any other religious bent other than Christian?
Where did this come from? The last time anyone proclaiming to be Christian was hell-bent on genocide to the scale you describe was the Catholics in the middle ages, when men went to "fight for Jerusalem". Hasn't happened since. Also, being a Christian myself, I can speak with great assurance that Christianity does not seek the death of anyone.
Historically Islam has been a much more peaceful religion than Christianity, and much more tolerant of other religions.
Really? Are you familiar with the history of Islam? in/around 630AD, Mohammed and his armies made quite a rush of much of North Africa and the Middle East. It took them a while, but it basically amounted to "convert or die". In the Koran itself, adherents are encouraged to kill infidels on sight. Good thing for me that they don't follow their holy book to the letter.
The best recipe for creating more terrorists and suicide bombers that I can think of is flying across the ocean, invading a country full of people of another religion, blowing up large numbers of them, including innocent civilians, taking some captive, torturing them and forcing them to perform immoral sexual acts, bleeding their economy dry with reparations (see Germany after WWII), and installing a known agent of your military as their new leader. Gee that won't make anyone mad enough to try to kill us. The more of them we kill, the more of their friends an relatives give up hope, and live only for hate and revenge. (see Vietnam).
Dude. You have issues.
You have no idea why we went to Vietnam, do you? We were asked by the South Vietnamese government to help them fight off the Communist armies of the North Vietnamese. We basically got dragged into a civil war.
You are greatly mistaken in assuming that the crimes committed in ONE PRISON were a recurrent theme across Iraq. It didn't happen, and you have no proof that it did. If it were widespread, we would have heard about it.
On top of that, you might like to be reminded that WWII was started by Germany, and that is why they were forced to carry the load for their reconstruction, just like Japan (for the same reason).
If you are going to make wild accusations and comparisons, at least prove that you paid attention in history class. (Of course, if they didn't cover this stuff in your school, I'll let it slide just this once, but that's a problem for another discussion.)
Unfair representation is unfair representation, and just because it has been that way for a long time, does not make it fair.
...and paint a little black moustache on Al Gore's upper lip, change all references to Bush and the GOP to Jews and Israel, translate it to German, and you've got Hitler himself. What's your point?
In that case, we better get on the ball and let the British Houses and the EU have a voting seat in the United States Congress-- They aren't fairly represented!
Well there is your problem, you seem to be getting all your news by watching TV.
Methinks thou dost assume too much. I don't get to watch more than a half hour or so of TV. I get my news from radio, Internet, and newspapers, thank you very little.
Gore declared Bush the winner quickly in an attempt to avoid a big legal battle and to keep from undermining the election process.
No, he conceeded the race because he was watching CBS (and other networks) proclaim Bush the winner by a large margin. When the votes were actually counted, Gore saw that it was too close to just throw away, and withdrew his concession. The rest is history (except for Al Gore and his lackeys, who are STILL bitter about the whole thing).
He may or may not have done the right thing.
With Gore, it's hard to tell. He claims to have been responsible for the creation of the Internet, he was among the many that proclaimed the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" to be prophetic in what could happen if we didn't take better care for the environment, and he seems to have a disturbing infatuation with chads. (It was Congress that funded DARPA, when Gore was a senator. Brighter minds than can normally be found in Washington did the actual work. The movie has been heralded by several scientists as 'impossible, unless several laws of physics were broken or suspended'. Whoever designed the ballot that had chads on it should be beaten severely.) Unfortunately for Gore, the odds are against him.
WTF are you talking about? I must have missed something, I don't remember Perot ever being elected president.
He wasn't. He did run for the office twice, though. The first time, he managed to get something like 14% (or was it 20%?) of the vote, and it scared the crap out of the Democrats and Republicans for about six months. The second time he ran for the office, he went insane. On July 15, 1996, he started making wild accusations that the CIA (and other covert agencies) were out to sabotage his daughter's wedding. The connection that you missed between Perot and your hypothetical representation of President Bush was the wild, baseless claims of subterfuge.
Supporters of Bush and his policies have more in common with the Christians of the Inquisition that tortured and murdered those poor ignorant jews for their own good, than with any real followers of Jesus.
Perhaps you should reread the history of the Inquisition period. They targeted anyone that was suspected of heresy against the Romish Church. If a person dared to believe something that was not sanctioned by the Pope (and the Inquisitors caught wind of it), they were (generally) tortured until they confessed, then killed. Comparing any of today's Christians to the Inquisitors shows a resounding ignorance of history.
Try taking a few recent republican speeches and swapping muslim/arab/terrorist with jew/foreigner/insurrectionist and then comparing them to some of the early Nazi party speeches.
I just explained why the system is broken, in fact you quoted it.
That doesn't prove the EC system to be bad. It proves the necessity to have a good method of casting and counting ballots.
By your logic, if I couldn't get to slashdot at all, then the DNS system must be broken. You'd be ignoring the fact that my cable modem is powered off. If you fix the intermediate problem (that of turning on the modem), then you would see that the DNS (and, by my example, the EC) wasn't broken after all; it works just fine.
it bad because of computing errors, which instead if getting a few wrong votes, will - with the corrupt EC system - give you a few wrong STATES.
You're making the assumption that the EC system is broken or "bad". Prove to me why that is. Your say-so isn't enough.
I like the idea of making each state's Electoral votes proportional, on the same line as the popular vote in that state. For example, if 40% of the population of a state favored Candidate A, 45% Candidate B, and 15% Candidate C, then the electoral votes that the state has would be divided accordingly (with any necessary rounding, as defined by that state).
The problem with a popular-vote-only system is that states with a high population (like California) would be able to dominate over a huge number of states that disagreed. It isn't fair at all, and I think that this sort of problem was foreseen when the whole EC idea was put forward.
after Gore won the popular vote
Are you still dwelling on that? Give it up, dude! It's DONE. Popular vote does not guarantee electoral votes! If it did, then states like California would get to decide every election, by sheer population numbers alone. That's why the Founding Fathers put the whole EC bit in place, so that no one state could dominate over all the others.
after a shady recount in a state governed by his brother
Oh, please... The video clips that are used by the news channels these days when talking about Florida's role in the 2000 election always show people poring over the ballots with magnifying glasses, looking for Gore's pet chads. Gore whined so much over that whole fiasco that I had cheese cravings for weeks.
After the election if Bush goes on TV and says, "Sorry we had to invalidate the results because a secret report from the CIA says terrorists rigged the election. I will remain president until this situation is resolved. " Most people will shrug and go back to watching Friends re-runs and eating low-carb twinkies.
Heh... You mean if Bush starts acting like H. Ross Perot? That's a good one!
There are too many problems with computerized voting NOW. Why should I think that something as complex as IRV (or most of the other alternate voting methods out there, for that matter) would go without a hitch? Like Communism, it looks good on paper, but it probably will not work well in practice.
If Congress wants to play around with the voting methods, they should to it on an off-year. People are polar enough now that if the election went either way, and the cause was percieved to be the tweaking in the voting methods, then there would be riots in the streets. If people are willing to riot over something as stupid and (relatively) meaningless as a sports event, imagine how they would react to something like an election...
On the other hand, I don't see a big problem with shifting the EC to a proportional system, like Maine has already (and Colorado voters are deciding on this year). That's a matter that is best left up to the states, though.
I won't deny the possibility that you're repeating some kind of spin invented by Rove to explain the incoherent spluttering of the Commander-In-Chief last Thursday.
No, i'm not. I watched the debate last week, and I came out of it thinking that Bush blubbered his way through. Kerry was much more organized, but I found his smirks annoying.
Screw it. You want my thoughts? Read my journal. I'm getting tired of typing this stuff over and over again.
Apparently, YOU didn't get it.
Section 5, pages 4-5 of the binding "Memorandum of Understanding" that was negotiated and agreed upon by both political campaigns states:
There was to be nothing brought in by either candidate. There would be the clothes on his back. Whatever was in his pocket (by "his", I mean either candidate), stays there. Kerry didn't obey the rule. He broke the rules. QED.
As I mentioned in my journal, it doesn't matter if it was a love note from Theresa, a pen, a or crib notes-- "no
heh. I suppose you'll deny the POSSIBILITY that the laptops stolen from one of Bush's campaign offices could end up in the hands of Kerry's people (assuming, of course, that they weren't the perps)?
I submitted this when it came out. It was rejected.
what ... does any of this have ANYTHING to do with who we want to be President?
Everything.
I've seen the video, and it's very clear that Kerry pulled something out of his jacket, which violates the rules. I've seen a picture that is supposed to support the claim that Bush had some sort of hearing aid/receiver, but I didn't see it.
What does it mean? Based on what I've seen so far, Kerry is showing a disregard for the rules. There are some who will proclaim from the towers that this is "situation normal" for John Kerry. I think that disregard for the rules of the debate reflects very poorly on Kerry's character.
If Kerry can't follow something as stupid as an agreement on how a debate will be conducted,what else will he fail to follow? How could we trust him to do the right thing when something more important comes up? Kerry is the sort of guy that will have no problem doing whatever makes him look good. He will have no problem doing whatever will save his neck... Everyone else's neck be damned. John Kerry is only looking for one thing: Glory for John Kerry. He cares for nobody else.
He jumps on Bush for the number of countries that started this whole mess in Iraq, but I don't seem to see a whole lot of countries (like France) stating that they would be looking forward to working with Kerry if he won the presidency; in fact, I have read several reports stating exactly the opposite. He won't have the support he says he will have. If you think he will, you've not been paying attention.
Nobody that values American sovereignty and the American way of life wants Kerry in the White House. The only people I have seen so far that want Kerry for president are EITHER terrorists OR people that hate Bush (and are extremely bitter about their loss in 2000). I doubt there are any people that really support Kerry based on who he is and what he believes. (If there are, I hope they can share the basis for their beliefs with the rest of us, because Kerry has been doing a piss-poor job of letting on that he has any.)
I believe he did differentiate reality from StarCraft, and it was only the point of "Overextention is Bad" that he was trying to make:
Without getting into it too much, I think that the one point was made with an example that many are familiar with.
This is an excellent point. Bush is on record that he prefered to leave the bulk of the decision-making (details of events in Iraq and Afghanistan) in the hands of his generals in the field. This means that except for the obvious points involving their presence in the theatre, the generals are either doing their job (when things go well) or failing (when things are hosed). Responsibility is still the president's, either way, but it's only right to give credit where it's due.
I think it applies to more than just that, though. When Senator Kerry (as an example) criticizes President Bush about spending, why does anyone blindly accept his commentary? The Constitution clearly states that Congress is responsible for paying debts (see below). The reason for any failure of monetary support for the military in the Iraqi and Afghan theatres should be explained by Senator Kerry, not President Bush...
There are many things that go on in American Politics that Congress and the President are responsible for, but I think that there are some (like I mentioned above) where Congress carries the bulk of the burden, yet some (like Senator Kerry) are trying to pin on President Bush. I don't mind blaming Bush for his failings, but I am annoyed when the president (of either party) gets blamed for the actions or inactions of the sitting Congress. Senator Kerry has demonstrated his skill at debates. If he has a better solution, and that solution must originate in Congress, why doesn't he do something about it himself while he's in a position to do it? Last time I checked, the president is able to sign or veto bills put before him, but he cannot originate bills himself.
-------------
My point of Congress' responsibility for the purse of the United States is based on the following:
Blah, blah, blah. I mention that I am amused at your rambling, decide not to waste any more time trying to get you to see that you may not actually know all the answers, and you think I declared victory? Hardly.
I've wasted precious time trying to talk sense to a pompous git that doesn't realize that his "most-holy science" doesn't hold all the answers, who declares people with faith in God as basing their faith on a "fallacy", with no proof that it actually is.
Want to see what I consider a "victory" in this conversation? Seeing you reply to this post, just so you can get the last word in.
Honestly, I get better conversations talking to a wall.
ROTFL! Listen to yourself. You are guilty of the very things you accuse me of doing.
EOD.
That's because you've never asked. You've just presented fallacious arguments against evolution. There isn't much need to respond to that beyond demonstrating that your claims are fallacious.
My whole point is that people (like you) automatically assume that beliefs (usually those of the Christian persuation) are "fallacious", but you expect me to accept that on your say-so. I have not seen sufficient evidence from you or anyone else that demonstrates categorically that what I believe is wrong. You have demonstrated nothing except that you have a severe disdain for people who believe in God (mine or otherwise), simply because it goes against your beliefs.
I can't prove anything regarding the existence of any gods, including the specific one that you happen to believe exists. This, however, does not make your arguments suddenly non-fallacious.
It doesn't make it fallacious, either. To argue otherwise means talking in circles.
So you're saying that scientists in a lab use supernatural methods? What, they invoke divine energies or perform magic rituals? That's a new one on me.
Compared to anything else going on in the world, it may as well be magic. Remember that it wasn't all that long ago that people accused others of being witches, just because they did something that was not generally understood or done. Imposing a characteristic on an animal or person through "scientific" means, when this characteristic would not show on its own, is not "natural". It's playing "what if".
Your appeal to incredulity fallacy is noted.
As is yours.
What, because you can't bring yourself to believe it?
No, because it doesn't make any sense. You've done a lot of talking, insulting my beliefs, but you've said nothing in support of your own. You make the pompous fat-headed decision that if you don't believe it, then it's wrong. If you can prove to me that you know so much about the Universe that I am wrong and there is no God, I'd like to hear it now. Otherwise, face the fact that in spite of your delusions, you might actually be wrong. Why won't you believe there is a God? Can't bring yourself to believe it?
Well of course not. It demolishes your argument, so you pretend that it's invalid through your own arbitrary hand-waving. I expect no less from a creationist.
Funny... You've been doing exactly what you accuse me of doing. I expect no less from a godless agnostic. (I don't think there's any such thing as an atheist. Something is a higher power to people like you, even if it's Human.)
"Natural selection" is using the scientific definition of "natural". Switching in the layman's definition to make an argument is dishonest.
There's nothing "natural" about genetic manipulation in a laboratory. That would be like claiming Artificial Intelligence is real intelligence, just because it is.
PETA is a bunch of lunatics
I'm glad I was sitting down for this. We actually found something we agree on!
Natural selection is merely the process of a select genetic group of a population being more successful at passing on their genes due to an advantage provided by their genes within their given environment.
This is the biggest reason I don't believe in Evolution. In order for a human to have evolved from pond scum, an enormous amount of time will have to have passed. Given what astrophysisists claim to be the age of the Universe, this simply could not have happened. Statistically, Evolution is impossible (for one explanation of this, see http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg/btg-179.pdf), because it would have to allow that almost every mutation was dominant and that it was not fatal to the being it occured to. It also assumes that another member of the species found the mutated member "attractive" for mating (if indeed the species in question was at the point of development where two members were required to perpetuate the species).
If humans are controlling the breeding based upon what they think are "desirable" genetic traits, then humans have become an environmental factor. It's still natural selection.
Interesting thought, but I don't accept it. If a force outside of the natural environment affects the species (i.e. human intervention), then it is artificial in nature. If one were to accept your argument, then it would (by proxy) negate pretty-much everything folk like PETA and other environmental protectionists have been arguing for decades. Somehow, I don't think they would take to kindly to that...
I find it interesting, to say the least. Time is the biggest enemy of staunch evolutionists. Their solution? Add more time. Heh.
-How do you observe anything in the past wise guy? I could say the same thing about your wacko beliefs about a superior being.
... -Evolution is testable, there are multiple examples of how human interaction changes species. And see above as well.
You, sir, are a dolt. Where did I say anything about my beliefs in this thread? I didn't. I made a comparison between people who's faith lies in a God, and people who's faith lies in what they can see, hear, and touch. My beliefs were never mentioned.
-The big bang is testable. Check Doppler effect, red shift, cosmic microwave background.
All the Doppler effects show is relative movement. They make no attempt whatsoever to explain the origin of the Universe. The religious folk, on the other hand, have an explanation, even if it is as faulty (from a scientific standpoint of not being repeatable, etc). As for the Big Bang Theory itself, I remember hearing how they can guess (!) at how everything came from one little speck, but there's no explanation where that came from.
-Although the big bang is not repeatable (trus me on this one buddy), the conditions that existed during the big bang may one day be replicated in very small scale.
Were you there when it happened? No? Do you know anyone (personally or otherwise) that was an eye witness to the event? No? Amazing, that you can speak with such authority! The Big Bang theory is just a theory. It's a guess, based on what is observed.
As for evolution by means of natural selection:
Ummm... I thought Natural Selection meant that there was no human intervention? See my next point.
-It is observable. Check the history of the HIV virus. For goodness sake, check the history of dog or cow breeds. Scientists use mutation rate in a daily basis when dealing with bacteria. As for all the fossils, well, honestly, what else do you want?
I want evidence that one species became another. There is lots of evidence of microevolution, which are changes within the species, but that is NOT the same as macroevolution, which is what you're talking about.