Palin was a mayor while Obama was a state senator. Her town had less than 10,000 people, while his state senate district has a larger population than the state of Alaska. I hope those are some good drugs, as saying Obama and Palin are in the same experience ballpark is indefensible garbage.
Listening to Obama supporters bash Palin on inexperience is like witnessing a second grader boasting that he's more mature than his kindergartner sister. He's got a point, and the difference seems huge to him.
Contrary to the wingnut line, it's not:
1) McCain appoints Palin 2) The Obama camp attacks her inexperience
Reality:
1) McCain dismisses mayors and short term governors in the primaries 2) McCain camp spends months attacking Obama for having less experience 3) Republicans dismiss mayors and short term governors when they think Obama might pick Tim Kaine. 4) McCain picks a mayor of 8,000 and governor of 1.5 years to be his VP 5) Obama camp says WTF? 6) Obama camp points out the insane hypocrisy of the McCain camp
You're letting your partisanship get the best of your objectivity.
Pot. Kettle. Black. The right wing doesn't really care about experience, it's just the new round of Calvinball. Otherwise Republicans would have voted for Gore (30 years public service) over George W. Bush (5 years as the 2nd or 3rd most powerful politician in Texas (lt governor has more power than gov in TX)) in droves. Just like how military experience was vital, absolutely vital, when Bill Clinton was running against George H.W. Bush, vs when George W. Bush was running against Gore, McCain and Kerry.
No, but since Obama supporters like you are now making him the candidate of "if you point out any error or inconsistency, my supporters will ignorantly accuse you of being an enemy operative", maybe it's not such a bad idea.
There are legitimate issues, like Obama's flip flop on FISA, and then there's being a hyperventilating Naderite purist. So far, you're falling into the latter category.
Tapper, an Obama supporter
Supporters don't constantly concern troll.
And now you're saying that a pledge and a commitment isn't a promise. Where is this candidate of change and new politics, exactly? He looks exactly like all the other ones.
Repeat K-12 and try to pick up some reading comprehension this time. From the very block of text you quoted:
"I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election."
Obama didn't commit to public financing, he wanted to make a deal to commit to public financing. And why exactly should Obama have made such a deal with McCain when McCain was violating the campaign finance law with his name on it?!?
The fact is, he alienated three quarters of his audience by those comments and while a shining example of MSNBC programing, his rating compared to other programs were abysmal.
No, the fact is Olbermann has his ratings because of his attitudes and opposition to Bush, not in spite of them.
If you look, you will see that their ratings went up with him gone.
If they were going to draw higher ratings with other hosts, they already would have drawn higher ratings with other hosts on their other shows. You aren't very good at this, are you?
And how do you do that without a monopoly on that form of labor? If they can get workers elsewhere without dealing with the union's "modicum of power", they will. Without the monopoly on labor, the union has no power.
They have no such thing. A company can fire their entire workforce and pay other people to do the job, it will just cost them. A lot. I would have more sympathy towards companies if they didn't hand out bonuses to top executives after a round of layoffs.
Since that is clearly not the intent of the Royal Society, given their stance against creationism, that is off-topic here.
WHOOSH. That was a reply to the parent, who was complaining of how tired he was of the FSM.
Well, surely they should address such issues, and correct their mistakes? That's what's being suggested here. You seem to be the one suggesting that we should ignore such mistakes, and let them slip by.
One sentence response: that's not science/proper English. No fuss, no muss, and no risk of giving Creationism any hint of validity in a science classroom.
What company insists that their IT professional belong to or are certified by the ACM.
And where did I say ACM did testing or that any companies asked for results of said testing? I was talking about professional organizations.
I don't know of any trade where BOTH the perceived status of the trade and its members has improved its craft because of unionizing.
Unions are whatever members make them to be. Note how all the elitists that whine about how unions will hold them back ignore athletic unions, where top stars earn more than some teams. If you want a union that, say, requires certification and retesting every five years, then make a union that requires certification and retesting every five years.
Say it all you want, that won't make it true. Oh, sure, it differs from physical theft, but it's still theft, just a different kind than your more mundane theft.
Is that so, Mr. Pot? Assault with a deadly weapon, arson, shooting heroin, fraud and driving under the influence are all crimes involving property, so they must be exactly the same, right? Or why not just rid of all definitions for completely different types of illegal activity and just go with baby-raping cannibalism and save us all kinds of time.
Ultimately, piracy may decrease sales of a product to the point where it would not be profitable to develop for the PC. You may think you're sending the message that you don't like DRM, but all they see is that PC gaming is the domain of pirates and people who don't pay for video games, and they may just pack up and leave it behind.
Except that EA isn't the only publisher and doesn't operate in a vacuum. If they see a high piracy/sales ratio compared to titles from other companies they might get the message.
And when you take an oath, on what do you lay your hand? A science textbook?... Heeey...wait a minute...Isn't a violation of some such n' such amendment?
Constitution for me. I'll bring a copy if necessary.
You know, the whole FSM thing is funny, but when it becomes the knee-jerk reaction to every discussion about creationism, it gets old fast.
Would you like some cheese with that? FSM was invented to counter the asininity of "teaching the controversy" as a back door to get Creationism into public schools and the science classroom. Stop the Creationist push and you wont hear of the poor old FSM any longer.
The reason it makes sense to discuss the differences between scientific reasoning vs. creationist belief is that there is a significant, vocal population of people who earnestly believe that creationism is not only true, but just as valid in a scientific context as evolution.
Too fucking bad for them. Should English teachers make room for "ain't" and misuses of their/they're/there along with good English diction just because students do it?
His basic point is that students with creationist views will clam up and refuse to learn any biology since the basis for biology is contrary to their beliefs.
Then they can fail. You don't see English teachers making accommodations for use of "ain't" or the misuse of their/they're/there.
These students have not heard of the enlightenment, and are guaranteed to be hostile to it if their beliefs are not addressed.
Don't be obtuse. No one believes anymore that rotting meat turns into maggots, so there is no risk in legitimizing the idea of spontaneous generation, anymore than little kids are going to start worshiping Zeus and Apollo because they read some old Greek tales. That's not the case with Creationists, who number in the millions and even built their own crazy museum in Kentucky.
However, if a growing number of children have creationist beliefs (of whatever religion), that are ingrained into them (part of Reiss's point is that this makes it hard to correct them, like a simple misconception), the question is how do we tackle this?
His own title for his own article: "Science lessons should tackle creationism and intelligent design". And then:
For example, the excellent book Science, Evolution, and Creationism published by the US National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine, asserts: "The ideas offered by intelligent design creationists are not the products of scientific reasoning. Discussing these ideas in science classes would not be appropriate given their lack of scientific support."
I agree with the first sentence but disagree with the second. Just because something lacks scientific support doesn't seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson. When I was taught physics at school, and taught it extremely well in my view, what I remember finding so exciting was that we could discuss almost anything providing we were prepared to defend our thinking in a way that admitted objective evidence and logical argument.
So when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one's best to have a genuine discussion. The word 'genuine' doesn't mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time.
Slashdot Mirror
Palin was a mayor while Obama was a state senator. Her town had less than 10,000 people, while his state senate district has a larger population than the state of Alaska. I hope those are some good drugs, as saying Obama and Palin are in the same experience ballpark is indefensible garbage.
Listening to Obama supporters bash Palin on inexperience is like witnessing a second grader boasting that he's more mature than his kindergartner sister. He's got a point, and the difference seems huge to him.
Contrary to the wingnut line, it's not:
1) McCain appoints Palin
2) The Obama camp attacks her inexperience
Reality:
1) McCain dismisses mayors and short term governors in the primaries
2) McCain camp spends months attacking Obama for having less experience
3) Republicans dismiss mayors and short term governors when they think Obama might pick Tim Kaine.
4) McCain picks a mayor of 8,000 and governor of 1.5 years to be his VP
5) Obama camp says WTF?
6) Obama camp points out the insane hypocrisy of the McCain camp
You're letting your partisanship get the best of your objectivity.
Pot. Kettle. Black. The right wing doesn't really care about experience, it's just the new round of Calvinball. Otherwise Republicans would have voted for Gore (30 years public service) over George W. Bush (5 years as the 2nd or 3rd most powerful politician in Texas (lt governor has more power than gov in TX)) in droves. Just like how military experience was vital, absolutely vital, when Bill Clinton was running against George H.W. Bush, vs when George W. Bush was running against Gore, McCain and Kerry.
No, but since Obama supporters like you are now making him the candidate of "if you point out any error or inconsistency, my supporters will ignorantly accuse you of being an enemy operative", maybe it's not such a bad idea.
There are legitimate issues, like Obama's flip flop on FISA, and then there's being a hyperventilating Naderite purist. So far, you're falling into the latter category.
Tapper, an Obama supporter
Supporters don't constantly concern troll.
And now you're saying that a pledge and a commitment isn't a promise. Where is this candidate of change and new politics, exactly? He looks exactly like all the other ones.
Repeat K-12 and try to pick up some reading comprehension this time. From the very block of text you quoted:
Obama didn't commit to public financing, he wanted to make a deal to commit to public financing. And why exactly should Obama have made such a deal with McCain when McCain was violating the campaign finance law with his name on it?!?
I don't see why not.
Since you missed it the first time: because you don't teach issues of faith in classes on reason.
You have to take on faith that your perceptions of the world around you that science measures and describes are real
False comparison. Our perceptions are testable. Faith is not.
The fact is, he alienated three quarters of his audience by those comments and while a shining example of MSNBC programing, his rating compared to other programs were abysmal.
No, the fact is Olbermann has his ratings because of his attitudes and opposition to Bush, not in spite of them.
If you look, you will see that their ratings went up with him gone.
If they were going to draw higher ratings with other hosts, they already would have drawn higher ratings with other hosts on their other shows. You aren't very good at this, are you?
And how do you do that without a monopoly on that form of labor? If they can get workers elsewhere without dealing with the union's "modicum of power", they will. Without the monopoly on labor, the union has no power.
They have no such thing. A company can fire their entire workforce and pay other people to do the job, it will just cost them. A lot. I would have more sympathy towards companies if they didn't hand out bonuses to top executives after a round of layoffs.
Your points, respectively:
garbage smear
garbage smear
and
garbage smear
Since that is clearly not the intent of the Royal Society, given their stance against creationism, that is off-topic here.
WHOOSH. That was a reply to the parent, who was complaining of how tired he was of the FSM.
Well, surely they should address such issues, and correct their mistakes? That's what's being suggested here. You seem to be the one suggesting that we should ignore such mistakes, and let them slip by.
One sentence response: that's not science/proper English. No fuss, no muss, and no risk of giving Creationism any hint of validity in a science classroom.
What company insists that their IT professional belong to or are certified by the ACM.
And where did I say ACM did testing or that any companies asked for results of said testing? I was talking about professional organizations.
I don't know of any trade where BOTH the perceived status of the trade and its members has improved its craft because of unionizing.
Unions are whatever members make them to be. Note how all the elitists that whine about how unions will hold them back ignore athletic unions, where top stars earn more than some teams. If you want a union that, say, requires certification and retesting every five years, then make a union that requires certification and retesting every five years.
Yeah, once, not for every job.
What I'd like to know is why, in the face of offshoring and job losses, the IT industry hasn't coelesced around a professional society or guild.
There is the ACM.
A professional guild, with some rigid certification testing, would be more effective than even unionizing
No it wont, unless it does collective bargaining. Workers would benefit more from the latter than the former.
Say it all you want, that won't make it true. Oh, sure, it differs from physical theft, but it's still theft, just a different kind than your more mundane theft.
Is that so, Mr. Pot? Assault with a deadly weapon, arson, shooting heroin, fraud and driving under the influence are all crimes involving property, so they must be exactly the same, right? Or why not just rid of all definitions for completely different types of illegal activity and just go with baby-raping cannibalism and save us all kinds of time.
Ultimately, piracy may decrease sales of a product to the point where it would not be profitable to develop for the PC. You may think you're sending the message that you don't like DRM, but all they see is that PC gaming is the domain of pirates and people who don't pay for video games, and they may just pack up and leave it behind.
Except that EA isn't the only publisher and doesn't operate in a vacuum. If they see a high piracy/sales ratio compared to titles from other companies they might get the message.
Nonsense. You are gaining utility without compensating the creators, and that's not right.
So Fish, you ever bought a used CD?
If your morals permit stealing
For the trillionth time, copyright infringement != stealing. And EA can whine about morals when they drop crippleware rootkits and limited installs.
you can't return opened software under US and other countries' copyright laws
No, that's the lie Best Buy tells people when they try to return something.
And when you take an oath, on what do you lay your hand? A science textbook?... Heeey...wait a minute...Isn't a violation of some such n' such amendment?
Constitution for me. I'll bring a copy if necessary.
There are certainly scientific creationist theories
Contradiction in terms. There have been attempts to rationalize parts of the Bible with science (i.e. Noah and the Flood), but no theories.
You know, the whole FSM thing is funny, but when it becomes the knee-jerk reaction to every discussion about creationism, it gets old fast.
Would you like some cheese with that? FSM was invented to counter the asininity of "teaching the controversy" as a back door to get Creationism into public schools and the science classroom. Stop the Creationist push and you wont hear of the poor old FSM any longer.
The reason it makes sense to discuss the differences between scientific reasoning vs. creationist belief is that there is a significant, vocal population of people who earnestly believe that creationism is not only true, but just as valid in a scientific context as evolution.
Too fucking bad for them. Should English teachers make room for "ain't" and misuses of their/they're/there along with good English diction just because students do it?
This is similar to the situation in Texas when a member of the education board was dismissed for speaking out against creationism.
Not remotely similar. The board member was 100% right, Creationism has no place in public schools or in science class.
Uh huh. You have anything more than anti-Muslim paranoia to back that up?
His basic point is that students with creationist views will clam up and refuse to learn any biology since the basis for biology is contrary to their beliefs.
Then they can fail. You don't see English teachers making accommodations for use of "ain't" or the misuse of their/they're/there.
These students have not heard of the enlightenment, and are guaranteed to be hostile to it if their beliefs are not addressed.
Too damned bad.
Don't be obtuse. No one believes anymore that rotting meat turns into maggots, so there is no risk in legitimizing the idea of spontaneous generation, anymore than little kids are going to start worshiping Zeus and Apollo because they read some old Greek tales. That's not the case with Creationists, who number in the millions and even built their own crazy museum in Kentucky.
However, if a growing number of children have creationist beliefs (of whatever religion), that are ingrained into them (part of Reiss's point is that this makes it hard to correct them, like a simple misconception), the question is how do we tackle this?
Um, telling them it's not science?
His own title for his own article: "Science lessons should tackle creationism and intelligent design". And then:
Sack him is right.
Except of course that shrinkwrap licenses are irrelevant and unenforceable.