You are still wrong about ring species. Oh, and I can't change your mind, your mind is closed. You just keep denying that the facts I present are facts, without saying why or shoeing any evidence. You aren't arguing a point, you are simply denying facts.
You've got nothing but opinions, unsupported by facts. Your opinions don't match up with reality. Just contradicting the truth doesn't make an argument. I've disproven every one of your so called claims, but you just keep denying it.
How stupid are you? Das Kapital was written a little bit before the great depression. How could it "quality"? No, I'm talking research using actual historical records about the depression.
The great depression, by any measure, ended shortly after FDR's policies took effect. GDP started growing again, that is the definition of the end of a depression. GDP grew incredibly quickly, more than it had before the downturn, until things were back where they were before the depression happened, in 1937. Then Republicans convinced FDR to stop his 'socialist' policies and a mini recession happened. He reimplemented them, and by the time WWII came around, it was as if the depression had never happened. In fact, if you'd just left money in the market through it, by Pearl Harbor you would have received a better average rate of return than has ever been seen under a Republican president.
The historical record doesn't lie. These facts and figures are easily available to everyone. Socialism has been proven to work, over and over again, and it will work here.
Get back to me when you're more educated. You are a virtual clone of millions of other uneducated people who know nothing about biology or evolution yet think they are fit to argue what they don't comprehend. You are not unique, your arguments have been made and refuted a million times before. It gets boring.
What? In a ring species A-B-C-D-E-F-G, A and D can't breed even if artificially inseminated. A and B can breed easily, B and C can breed easily, and so on. But a and D can't.
You are just misinformed about speciation, I don't know what more I can say except you are obviously attached to your theories and unwilling to look at evidence that contradicts them. First year biology students know that you are wrong.
It is as if you are attempting to claim that the earth is flat, it is that outdated and ridiculous. You don't even know what the word species means, or what interbreeding means, as evidenced by your complete lack of understanding of the concept of ring species. You lack a high school level knowledge of biology and expect to be taken seriously in a discussion.
You don't even know enough to know that you sound like a complete buffoon. Your arguments are logical, but your assumptions are completely off kilter and contrary to current knowledge, heck, you don't even use basic words from biology correctly, so your conclusions are nonsensical.
You just keep claiming that completely untrue things are true, but who are you trying to fool?
Wrong. Just look up the actual statistics and figures about the depression. Only radical free market revisionists rewrite history like you do and expect anyone to believe their fantasies. I've done the research, it's obvious you haven't.
You'll be eating your words in a year when the economy turns around and your world view is proven old and outdated. Until then, you can sit, bitterly dreaming of America's failure. I'll be over here with the patriots cheering her on.
You misunderstand the concept of ring species. Certain ring species can't physically breed, but there is no hard and fast cut off. Please research the concept before attempting to comment on it. You simply appear uninformed when you don't know common biology terms.
You are wrong about speciation, too. Completely wrong. It has been observed, and written about quiet extensively. For instance, before the invention of nylon, nothing on earth had the enzymes necessary to digest it. A few decades after it was invented, a new species of bacteria had evolved that could digest it.
You can't just deny factual evidence and call it an argument.
Humans are just part of the natural environment that created both breeds. No difference. Great danes and chihuahuas are separate species. Just like two species on the opposite sides of a ring in ring species are separate. You can see this in birds of the arctic circle. Each type can breed with those next to it, but travel too far around the circle and the species can't breed. For example, A-B-C-D-E-F-G. A can breed with G and B, produce sterile offspring with C and F, and can't breed at all with D. Such collections of ring species exist all over the world, and it's not too far of a stretch to look at great danes and chihuahuas the same way. Because a great dane father would simply kill a chihuahua, the mother is physically unable to bear the children even with artificial insemination.
But all that is moot, because we have far more compelling evidence. We've bred species of fruit flies in the lab that can no longer interbreed with wild fruit flies. Speciation has been observed in the lab and in the wild. The debate about macro evolution is over. It was only ever considered a separate thing by creationists anyhow. Macro and micro evolution are the same thing.
If a God can exist without having a creator, so can a Universe. Saying God created it answers nothing, predicts nothing of value, and is thus essentially meaningless. By your logic, God could have created the Universe this very second, with light already in transit from distant galaxies, thoughts already half formed in your mind, a half written post on a computer in front of you, memories of writing it snug in your head.
That is no more or less absurd than saying God created the Universe billions of years ago.
They just did pull the plug. Fortunately, all the individual moments are part of Totality anyway. The simulation isn't the only thing that describes them and puts them in a sequence. And they weren't the only ones running the simulation anyhow, so, when they turned it off, we never even noticed.
Science can't help you find it, because science deals with theory, not Truth. Religion won't help you find it, because you haven't lost it. In general though, we don't want big T Truth, we want a convenient little truth we can carry around in our pockets and show off when we want to impress someone. Big T Truth is too damn simple, and you can't show it to people. Of course, what I've written is theory, not Truth.
I was going to post this exact thing, but I thought, what the heck? It's so obvious, someone must have beaten me too it. I'm surprised I had to scroll down this far to find common sense. And before you ask, no, I'm not new here.
Crap. I have free software worth tens of thousands of dollars on my computer at home. I shudder to think how much we have here at work. I'm thinking Microsoft might want in on this action, to put a tax smackdown on Open Source.
No, you said Obama is far to the left of the citizens that elected him, implying they are too stupid to vote for what they want. America is a liberal country. The right wing, the Republicans, are a dying breed that only gets any traction in the south among old white men. They are the minority. You are the minority. America isn't the hate filled, greedy, racist, misogynistic country you seem to hope it is.
First, take it in context. Second, it isn't about race but life experience, Third, she's basically saying she hopes she'll make good decisions and try to follow the law, not the feelings that growing up Latina create in her.
She never said a Latina would make better decisions than a white man. Allow me to quote you, horrendously mangling her quote:
Sotomayor said that being Latina makes someone give better answers.
If you have any interest in fairness, don't repeat that misquote. If you do want to quote her, at least do it accurately, if not in context.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
VERY different than what you imply. Tell me, how is what she said any different from what Alito said? Where does she say that a Latina will make better decisions? Nowhere, and that is not at all what she was implying.
Bush was an extreme right wing neo-con, not a corporate centrist. I'd rather have redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor than the other way around, which is what we've had for the last thirty years. Look at graphs of real income. The top one percent received nearly all the increase in GDP over the last thirty years or so.
Try making a statement of fact and see if you get modded down. Or, if you are prone to posting inflammatory personal opinions, back them up with sourced facts. You need to actually show what the politics of the American electorate are, and how Obama's policies are 'far to the left' of him.
Basically, you just called the majority of Americans idiots for voting for him. That's why you got moderated like you did. I guess it kinda shows you just how wrong you are, doesn't it?
Slashdot Mirror
You are still wrong about ring species. Oh, and I can't change your mind, your mind is closed. You just keep denying that the facts I present are facts, without saying why or shoeing any evidence. You aren't arguing a point, you are simply denying facts.
You've got nothing but opinions, unsupported by facts. Your opinions don't match up with reality. Just contradicting the truth doesn't make an argument. I've disproven every one of your so called claims, but you just keep denying it.
How stupid are you? Das Kapital was written a little bit before the great depression. How could it "quality"? No, I'm talking research using actual historical records about the depression.
The great depression, by any measure, ended shortly after FDR's policies took effect. GDP started growing again, that is the definition of the end of a depression. GDP grew incredibly quickly, more than it had before the downturn, until things were back where they were before the depression happened, in 1937. Then Republicans convinced FDR to stop his 'socialist' policies and a mini recession happened. He reimplemented them, and by the time WWII came around, it was as if the depression had never happened. In fact, if you'd just left money in the market through it, by Pearl Harbor you would have received a better average rate of return than has ever been seen under a Republican president.
The historical record doesn't lie. These facts and figures are easily available to everyone. Socialism has been proven to work, over and over again, and it will work here.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Ring species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
Species: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
Interbreeding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interbreeding
Get back to me when you're more educated. You are a virtual clone of millions of other uneducated people who know nothing about biology or evolution yet think they are fit to argue what they don't comprehend. You are not unique, your arguments have been made and refuted a million times before. It gets boring.
What? In a ring species A-B-C-D-E-F-G, A and D can't breed even if artificially inseminated. A and B can breed easily, B and C can breed easily, and so on. But a and D can't.
You are just misinformed about speciation, I don't know what more I can say except you are obviously attached to your theories and unwilling to look at evidence that contradicts them. First year biology students know that you are wrong.
It is as if you are attempting to claim that the earth is flat, it is that outdated and ridiculous. You don't even know what the word species means, or what interbreeding means, as evidenced by your complete lack of understanding of the concept of ring species. You lack a high school level knowledge of biology and expect to be taken seriously in a discussion.
You don't even know enough to know that you sound like a complete buffoon. Your arguments are logical, but your assumptions are completely off kilter and contrary to current knowledge, heck, you don't even use basic words from biology correctly, so your conclusions are nonsensical.
You just keep claiming that completely untrue things are true, but who are you trying to fool?
Wrong. Just look up the actual statistics and figures about the depression. Only radical free market revisionists rewrite history like you do and expect anyone to believe their fantasies. I've done the research, it's obvious you haven't.
You'll be eating your words in a year when the economy turns around and your world view is proven old and outdated. Until then, you can sit, bitterly dreaming of America's failure. I'll be over here with the patriots cheering her on.
You misunderstand the concept of ring species. Certain ring species can't physically breed, but there is no hard and fast cut off. Please research the concept before attempting to comment on it. You simply appear uninformed when you don't know common biology terms.
You are wrong about speciation, too. Completely wrong. It has been observed, and written about quiet extensively. For instance, before the invention of nylon, nothing on earth had the enzymes necessary to digest it. A few decades after it was invented, a new species of bacteria had evolved that could digest it.
You can't just deny factual evidence and call it an argument.
Humans are just part of the natural environment that created both breeds. No difference. Great danes and chihuahuas are separate species. Just like two species on the opposite sides of a ring in ring species are separate. You can see this in birds of the arctic circle. Each type can breed with those next to it, but travel too far around the circle and the species can't breed. For example, A-B-C-D-E-F-G. A can breed with G and B, produce sterile offspring with C and F, and can't breed at all with D. Such collections of ring species exist all over the world, and it's not too far of a stretch to look at great danes and chihuahuas the same way. Because a great dane father would simply kill a chihuahua, the mother is physically unable to bear the children even with artificial insemination.
But all that is moot, because we have far more compelling evidence. We've bred species of fruit flies in the lab that can no longer interbreed with wild fruit flies. Speciation has been observed in the lab and in the wild. The debate about macro evolution is over. It was only ever considered a separate thing by creationists anyhow. Macro and micro evolution are the same thing.
If a God can exist without having a creator, so can a Universe. Saying God created it answers nothing, predicts nothing of value, and is thus essentially meaningless. By your logic, God could have created the Universe this very second, with light already in transit from distant galaxies, thoughts already half formed in your mind, a half written post on a computer in front of you, memories of writing it snug in your head.
That is no more or less absurd than saying God created the Universe billions of years ago.
All skeletal remains are transient.
Show me a chihuahua and a great dane breeding without artificial intervention. Without humans, they are separate species.
We are natural selection, as much as anything else is.
They just did pull the plug. Fortunately, all the individual moments are part of Totality anyway. The simulation isn't the only thing that describes them and puts them in a sequence. And they weren't the only ones running the simulation anyhow, so, when they turned it off, we never even noticed.
Science can't help you find it, because science deals with theory, not Truth. Religion won't help you find it, because you haven't lost it. In general though, we don't want big T Truth, we want a convenient little truth we can carry around in our pockets and show off when we want to impress someone. Big T Truth is too damn simple, and you can't show it to people. Of course, what I've written is theory, not Truth.
I was going to post this exact thing, but I thought, what the heck? It's so obvious, someone must have beaten me too it. I'm surprised I had to scroll down this far to find common sense. And before you ask, no, I'm not new here.
Crap. I have free software worth tens of thousands of dollars on my computer at home. I shudder to think how much we have here at work. I'm thinking Microsoft might want in on this action, to put a tax smackdown on Open Source.
I thought he said he was going to FeedStock, that big anti-hunger concert up in... Is that a Snickers bar? Man am I hungry.
No, you said Obama is far to the left of the citizens that elected him, implying they are too stupid to vote for what they want. America is a liberal country. The right wing, the Republicans, are a dying breed that only gets any traction in the south among old white men. They are the minority. You are the minority. America isn't the hate filled, greedy, racist, misogynistic country you seem to hope it is.
First, take it in context. Second, it isn't about race but life experience, Third, she's basically saying she hopes she'll make good decisions and try to follow the law, not the feelings that growing up Latina create in her.
She never said a Latina would make better decisions than a white man. Allow me to quote you, horrendously mangling her quote:
Sotomayor said that being Latina makes someone give better answers.
If you have any interest in fairness, don't repeat that misquote. If you do want to quote her, at least do it accurately, if not in context.
Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
VERY different than what you imply. Tell me, how is what she said any different from what Alito said? Where does she say that a Latina will make better decisions? Nowhere, and that is not at all what she was implying.
Bush was an extreme right wing neo-con, not a corporate centrist. I'd rather have redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor than the other way around, which is what we've had for the last thirty years. Look at graphs of real income. The top one percent received nearly all the increase in GDP over the last thirty years or so.
Try reading the ENTIRE Sotomayor quote.
Try making a statement of fact and see if you get modded down. Or, if you are prone to posting inflammatory personal opinions, back them up with sourced facts. You need to actually show what the politics of the American electorate are, and how Obama's policies are 'far to the left' of him.
Basically, you just called the majority of Americans idiots for voting for him. That's why you got moderated like you did. I guess it kinda shows you just how wrong you are, doesn't it?
You didn't read the whole quote.