The US entry into WWI was a disaster. It caused a war that would have probably ended in a draw to become a blowout with severe, punitive and vindictive penalties for the loser. Those penalties were a large part of the ultimate causes of WWII.
Teddy Roosevelt was a man of extraordinary evil. There's no convincing you, but perhaps some others can see some of your bias by considering this from your diatribe:
Teddy gave Yellow Stone Park to all citizens of the USA.
He gave nothing, he didn't own it in the first place. Before it became a national park, it was the property of individuals or states. To claim that citizens own Yellowstone is a laugh, it is owned by the US government and strictly controlled by it through the Park Service. It would be funny, if not so sad, if you tried to exercise any property rights in this park that you think you are part owner of. If you tried to build a house there, you would be locked up. If you tried to defend your actions on the basis that it's your property, you'd end up in a loony bin.
Like every other president involved in the Vietnam fight, Johnson wrongly believed that the effort should be limited. No bombing of supply lines, no attacking North Vietnam cites. The result was many more lives lost.
Nixon was elected in part on his assertion that he had "a secret plan" to end the war in Vietnam.
This is a lie was invented by Nixon's opponents during the campaign, and has been promulgated by them ever since. It has no basis in fact.
It takes a really childish mentality to say "I have a secret plan to do thus and so", and a particularly foolish childish mind for a presidential candidate to think he could get away with saying so. Even worse is the person who believes a presidential candidate would say it.
There would have been a huge clamor in the press, at press conferences and campaign rallies, to reveal his secret. No such clamor happened.
The economic argument has only gained popularity in the last 25 years. People have been pointing out that communism is economically defective for a century, but the idea that a hot war was an deliberate economic policy is both new and silly.
You're not getting away with this one. Nixon was on the forefront of advancing civil rights for 20 years. It's shameful that historians are letting Democrats take credit for improving race relations, when their goal has been to inflame them.
Reagan's mere existence undermined Jimmy Carter's phoney baloney efforts to get the hostages released. Carter was weak; the Iranians knew that Reagan would brook no nonsense.
Nixon was against the EPA, but the nation wanted it. He grudgingly created it.
As Vietnam wound down and the draft ended, the wild left lost traction and was thrashing around for a new issue to inflame the general public. They hit on environmentalism, and it was starting to work until Nixon cut their legs out from under them by supporting environmental cleanup. It was not an issue that excited widespread excited support, your claim that "the nation wanted it" notwithstanding.
Trivialities. The best thing Nixon did was finally end slavery, more commonly known as the military draft. The worst thing he did, which overwhelms all else and has allowed the global financial disaster that continues to this very day, is go off the gold standard.
And why might Johnson have been afraid to release the tape? Queries into why people associated with Nixon were being wiretapped? Remember, that's the sort of misbehavior that eventually forced Nixon to leave office.
Do you not understand the meaning of the word "directly"? Was Bush firing guns, cannons, or missiles at Americans? Was he fabricating land mines? No, so he's not directly responsible. An argument can be made for "indirectly", an argument can be made for "maliciously", but claiming "directly" is just wrong.
If TFA's claims are true, Nixon was clearly breaking the law by acting as a private citizen negotiating with foreign government, just as Carter has done more recently. However, the claim that his actions were treasonous are just plain wrong: treason in the United States consists of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and nothing else qualifies. In case you've forgotten, it was North Vietnam that was the enemy.
There is implicit prediction in any tying together of environmental change and a species' physical change in response, that similar environmental changes in the future will result in similar responses, and that a change in the other direction will result in a reversion of the physical change. Such response was noted even in Darwin's work.
You missed the critical word "more". Suppose that there is a bird that produces both blue and orange offspring, and that there is plenty of food and lodging available for both types. However, the polka-dot hawk eats all the orange offspring. Over time, the blue-orange bird may well evolve to not produce orange offspring, because those offspring aren't successful. Note that it is not that "more offspring are produced than can possibly survive", just that one type of offspring doesn't survive because it is unfit for an environment including polka-dot hawks.
Natural selection is the process whereby some living things continue living and reproduce while other living things die before reproducing.
Evolution is the process whereby groups of similar living things change their characteristics over the course of a large number of generations. (This process includes two critical components, that differences occur sometimes from one generation to the next [such as by mutation or sexual recombination], and that selective pressures move the typical successful offspring's heritable characteristics away from the heritable characteristics of its parent[s].)
It's also worth noting that biologists are continually quibbling over whether or not two particular varieties of creatures are separate species or not. It's a difficult technical issue. We're looking for a definition that provides the best utility for human understanding, and that involves criteria from general appearance all the way down to the molecular scale.
Human-directed selection in plants, particularly decorative flowers, has lead to new types that are reproductively incompatible with their forebears, and also new types that are sterile.
To a lesser degree of separation, go to a grocery and look for pluots, plumcots, and apriums. Hybridized from plums and apricots, they aren't plums and they are obviously not apricots.
"Atheist myth" is an oxymoron. Atheism, in and of itself, has nothing to say about the origin of the universe beyond rejecting the absurdity of supernatural beings bring involved.
Slashdot Mirror
The US entry into WWI was a disaster. It caused a war that would have probably ended in a draw to become a blowout with severe, punitive and vindictive penalties for the loser. Those penalties were a large part of the ultimate causes of WWII.
He gave nothing, he didn't own it in the first place. Before it became a national park, it was the property of individuals or states. To claim that citizens own Yellowstone is a laugh, it is owned by the US government and strictly controlled by it through the Park Service. It would be funny, if not so sad, if you tried to exercise any property rights in this park that you think you are part owner of. If you tried to build a house there, you would be locked up. If you tried to defend your actions on the basis that it's your property, you'd end up in a loony bin.
Like every other president involved in the Vietnam fight, Johnson wrongly believed that the effort should be limited. No bombing of supply lines, no attacking North Vietnam cites. The result was many more lives lost.
Gee, you must really love George Washington and Abraham Lincoln.
This is a lie was invented by Nixon's opponents during the campaign, and has been promulgated by them ever since. It has no basis in fact.
It takes a really childish mentality to say "I have a secret plan to do thus and so", and a particularly foolish childish mind for a presidential candidate to think he could get away with saying so. Even worse is the person who believes a presidential candidate would say it.
There would have been a huge clamor in the press, at press conferences and campaign rallies, to reveal his secret. No such clamor happened.
The economic argument has only gained popularity in the last 25 years. People have been pointing out that communism is economically defective for a century, but the idea that a hot war was an deliberate economic policy is both new and silly.
I keep reading The CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics. What opinion am I getting from that?
You're not getting away with this one. Nixon was on the forefront of advancing civil rights for 20 years. It's shameful that historians are letting Democrats take credit for improving race relations, when their goal has been to inflame them.
Reagan's mere existence undermined Jimmy Carter's phoney baloney efforts to get the hostages released. Carter was weak; the Iranians knew that Reagan would brook no nonsense.
As Vietnam wound down and the draft ended, the wild left lost traction and was thrashing around for a new issue to inflame the general public. They hit on environmentalism, and it was starting to work until Nixon cut their legs out from under them by supporting environmental cleanup. It was not an issue that excited widespread excited support, your claim that "the nation wanted it" notwithstanding.
Trivialities. The best thing Nixon did was finally end slavery, more commonly known as the military draft. The worst thing he did, which overwhelms all else and has allowed the global financial disaster that continues to this very day, is go off the gold standard.
And why might Johnson have been afraid to release the tape? Queries into why people associated with Nixon were being wiretapped? Remember, that's the sort of misbehavior that eventually forced Nixon to leave office.
Multiyear nationwide persecution, enslavement, torture, and murder of millions of Jews. I'm not letting you get away with the qualifier "qualitative".
Do you not understand the meaning of the word "directly"? Was Bush firing guns, cannons, or missiles at Americans? Was he fabricating land mines? No, so he's not directly responsible. An argument can be made for "indirectly", an argument can be made for "maliciously", but claiming "directly" is just wrong.
If TFA's claims are true, Nixon was clearly breaking the law by acting as a private citizen negotiating with foreign government, just as Carter has done more recently. However, the claim that his actions were treasonous are just plain wrong: treason in the United States consists of giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and nothing else qualifies. In case you've forgotten, it was North Vietnam that was the enemy.
See The Next Million Years by Darwin's grandson.
There is implicit prediction in any tying together of environmental change and a species' physical change in response, that similar environmental changes in the future will result in similar responses, and that a change in the other direction will result in a reversion of the physical change. Such response was noted even in Darwin's work.
I doubt that the grackles were paying attention to the lights. More likely, they were watching the motion of the trucks.
The concentration of CO2 in the air is about 0.04%. It is simply not aerodynamically significant.
The survival of a smaller variety of a single species of game fish has already been observed. Sorry, no citation.
You missed the critical word "more". Suppose that there is a bird that produces both blue and orange offspring, and that there is plenty of food and lodging available for both types. However, the polka-dot hawk eats all the orange offspring. Over time, the blue-orange bird may well evolve to not produce orange offspring, because those offspring aren't successful. Note that it is not that "more offspring are produced than can possibly survive", just that one type of offspring doesn't survive because it is unfit for an environment including polka-dot hawks.
Natural selection is the process whereby some living things continue living and reproduce while other living things die before reproducing.
Evolution is the process whereby groups of similar living things change their characteristics over the course of a large number of generations. (This process includes two critical components, that differences occur sometimes from one generation to the next [such as by mutation or sexual recombination], and that selective pressures move the typical successful offspring's heritable characteristics away from the heritable characteristics of its parent[s].)
It's also worth noting that biologists are continually quibbling over whether or not two particular varieties of creatures are separate species or not. It's a difficult technical issue. We're looking for a definition that provides the best utility for human understanding, and that involves criteria from general appearance all the way down to the molecular scale.
Human-directed selection in plants, particularly decorative flowers, has lead to new types that are reproductively incompatible with their forebears, and also new types that are sterile.
To a lesser degree of separation, go to a grocery and look for pluots, plumcots, and apriums. Hybridized from plums and apricots, they aren't plums and they are obviously not apricots.
"Atheist myth" is an oxymoron. Atheism, in and of itself, has nothing to say about the origin of the universe beyond rejecting the absurdity of supernatural beings bring involved.