I disagree. While Santorum doesn't stand a chance against Obama and Romney looks better than Santorum, Romney's got zero connection with middle America. Obama can rip right through that hole to an easy win. Santorum can talk to Americans, but America is not yet ready for a fascist/fundamentalist. Plus, he's genuinely stupid.
That kind of misrepresentation of your opponents' positions plays well on the Limbaugh circuit, but doesn't work well here where your audience can jump two inches up the page to confirm that yep, they didn't say what you said they said.
Some estimates put the maximum of the Laffer curve at 75% taxation, is that where you want to go? And of course the curve has nothing to do with differential taxations between regions.
The more something cannot be true, the stronger your faith must be to believe in it. Also, believing in something that's obviously not true is better proof that you're committed to the group than believing in something that is true.
You've just described one dimension over a tiny region of a much larger, multi-dimensional curve that's far from flat overall. What is the longest you've gone without food?
It's a fact for particular objects and particular definitions of the word "combine". It's not a universal fact. There are some domains in the real world where the assumption 1+1 = 2 seems to be true, and others where it seems to be false.
You can be both atheist and an agnostic. I believe there is no god but I don't really know, so I don't value that belief very highly, it's just my working position.
And lots of claims of religion are testable, It's just that religion has over the centuries retreated from these claims because they didn't test out very well. Religious theories dominated science for millenia. Folks were able to make predictions from them and test those predictions, they were found wanting.
Why would you say that? It's not at all obvious. As an example, in the US we currently call non-white folk "minorities" but nobody would say that "minority" is a skin color.
It's you that needs to be more careful with words. Atheism is a religion only as far as say, polytheism is a religion, which it isn't. Polytheism is a good descriptor for some religions, but some people who are polytheistic aren't religious.
Now, atheism would have to be part of a system of belief system for an atheist, but an individual's belief system really isn't that important. It's the Abrahamic religions that have blown them out of proportion, and it's for this external reason that atheists are forced to proclaim themselves.
Burning Wheel, which I guess is not a major RPG, insists that the DM follow the rules. This is partly in reaction to the perceived negative social effects of rules fudging so commonly found in D&D.
Indeed. It's the author's prerogative to have the stupidest possible plan magically work out. Any sensible Elrond would have had Gandalf held for treason for even making the suggestion.
Frodo's parents are mentioned, though Tolkien manages to knock them off before page 1. Lord knows what frodo and sam got up to in the emen muil or whatever emens they spent a whole book wandering in, and Legolas and Gimli in the crystal cave? Forget about it!
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, but if you feed trained worm to an untrained one, it'll know the labyrinth.
Miscarriage, I reckon.
I disagree. While Santorum doesn't stand a chance against Obama and Romney looks better than Santorum, Romney's got zero connection with middle America. Obama can rip right through that hole to an easy win. Santorum can talk to Americans, but America is not yet ready for a fascist/fundamentalist. Plus, he's genuinely stupid.
That kind of misrepresentation of your opponents' positions plays well on the Limbaugh circuit, but doesn't work well here where your audience can jump two inches up the page to confirm that yep, they didn't say what you said they said.
Why don't you try a little honesty for a change?
Some estimates put the maximum of the Laffer curve at 75% taxation, is that where you want to go? And of course the curve has nothing to do with differential taxations between regions.
The oort cloud is a hypothesis, what's unscientific about a hypothesis? Anyone who'd say so, you for instance, deserves to be mocked.
It probably will be like subs in that victory goes to the sub that makes the detection.
I think Mr. Minchin is an Aussie.
The more something cannot be true, the stronger your faith must be to believe in it. Also, believing in something that's obviously not true is better proof that you're committed to the group than believing in something that is true.
I don't understand what's to debunk about scientiology. L. Ron Hubbard said he made it up on a bet.
If you believed in God you'd not cover up for pedophiles, therefore the current Pope and many Bishops are atheists and fraudsters.
You've just described one dimension over a tiny region of a much larger, multi-dimensional curve that's far from flat overall. What is the longest you've gone without food?
It's a fact for particular objects and particular definitions of the word "combine". It's not a universal fact. There are some domains in the real world where the assumption 1+1 = 2 seems to be true, and others where it seems to be false.
True love is a pretty good motivator to work on a relationship.
You mean life is dangerous and uncertain and even true love doesn't fix all problems? Shocker.
"Happiness is a differential function."
Wow, that may be the most plainly wrong statement I've ever read about such a nebulous and subjective concept.
These some really get around these days.
You can be both atheist and an agnostic. I believe there is no god but I don't really know, so I don't value that belief very highly, it's just my working position.
And lots of claims of religion are testable, It's just that religion has over the centuries retreated from these claims because they didn't test out very well. Religious theories dominated science for millenia. Folks were able to make predictions from them and test those predictions, they were found wanting.
Lord knows you don't have to believe in a religion to teach it or create it! See L. Ron Hubbard.
I always figured it was an exasperated parent.
"Why do I have to go to bed?"
"Because God said so."
"Who's God?"
"He's like me only bigger, and he's *always watching you*"
"If we did... it would in fact be a hobby."
Why would you say that? It's not at all obvious. As an example, in the US we currently call non-white folk "minorities" but nobody would say that "minority" is a skin color.
It's you that needs to be more careful with words. Atheism is a religion only as far as say, polytheism is a religion, which it isn't. Polytheism is a good descriptor for some religions, but some people who are polytheistic aren't religious.
Now, atheism would have to be part of a system of belief system for an atheist, but an individual's belief system really isn't that important. It's the Abrahamic religions that have blown them out of proportion, and it's for this external reason that atheists are forced to proclaim themselves.
Scientific consensus is probably a fair starting point for picking out which facts ought to be taught in school.
Another Slashdotter unsure whether scientists have heard of the Sun.
Burning Wheel, which I guess is not a major RPG, insists that the DM follow the rules. This is partly in reaction to the perceived negative social effects of rules fudging so commonly found in D&D.
Indeed. It's the author's prerogative to have the stupidest possible plan magically work out. Any sensible Elrond would have had Gandalf held for treason for even making the suggestion.
Frodo's parents are mentioned, though Tolkien manages to knock them off before page 1. Lord knows what frodo and sam got up to in the emen muil or whatever emens they spent a whole book wandering in, and Legolas and Gimli in the crystal cave? Forget about it!