No, they can't. Tehre are serious problems with the techniques which make them not as usable and in many cases worthless for research.
Citation please. I've heard that some of the "approved" stem cell lines can not be used in actual human trials, but so what? You use government funding and government approved stem cell lines. You get a breakthrough. Use that breakthrough to get private funding and dump all government funding and imposed limitations. Profit!
Kind of completely ignored my post, didn't you? Again, not everything in biology is for immediate use. Biology is a science. Cell biology as a scientific inquiry into the workings of the cell, ESC have already proven themselves as valuable research models. Again I'm pointing to IPSC as one of the biggest successes with ESC research.
It's fine to point out that no cures have come from ESC yet, but they do have other valuable uses.
You are correct, research is a long process. However, at some point, you have to put aside you political ideology and accept that there may be better ways. The fact remains that even though adult derived stem cells are a fairly new thing, there have been more actual cures from adult stem cells (greater than zero) than there have been from embryonic stem cells (exactly zero) which have been around longer. Adult derived cells have the added bonus of having no political objections for using them. So, why on earth would you insist on continuing to research embryonic stem cells? That would be like demanding funding for cold fusion research AFTER another cheap and clean energy source had been found.
Hell, even the founder of stem cell research now objects to using embryonic stem cells now that adult derived stem cells are offering better results. See my sig for the quote.
I'd give up now, unfortunately the whole embryonic stem cell debate brings out the religious right who ignore studies. They seem use strawman arguments to try to push their own agenda.
The rest of us who do actually read studies and support embryonic stem cells know what you're getting at.
I bet these religious nuts don't even realise how much embryonic material (not just stem cells) are used in science. In fact, one of my friends when working in a neuroscience institution was quite frank with the fact she used aborted human embryos in her research. They keep it low key to stop the religious nuts from protesting or doing something destructive to the labs.
It seems the most ill informed people in the world would prefer to see adults die rather than an aborted embryo be used for research.
If you informed yourself, you would understand the objection. You see, some people have a problem saying who is human and who is not. I mean, if it has human DNA, brain waves, heart beat, can feel pain and so on, it's human, right? Well, some people say it's human, or at least don't have the gaul to declare who is human and who is "sub-human", and they're not really "crazy" or "ill informed" in that belief. If I gave you an "aborted embryo" at eight months gestation and a one month prematurely born baby that had died during child birth, you would be hard pressed to tell me the difference between the two. Why would one be considered human and the other not? Who TF are we to decide that? How powerful is a government that can deem someone non-human?
OK, either way, so some people think that human embryos are human BECAUSE they are informed. Now, if you believed that dead human beings were being used for scientific research without their prior consent, wouldn't YOU speak up? Wouldn't YOU stand up for the rights of those that can not stand up for themselves? These people would, and they do. For that, they are called "religious nuts", "ill informed" and "religious right who ignore studies". Sadly, it's YOU who are ignorant of them, not the other way around.
And they had to inject them within 7 DAYS of the injury!
Which is pretty typical of initial trials. I never said this was a full-blown, ready to use treatment.
OK, but that's not what I'd call a breakthrough, which is what the GP was asking for.
We've been able to hook up devices to roaches heads and use joysticks to move them around, but that's not exactly what I'd call mind control either.
When a Christopher Reeves type patient gets up and walks from an embryonic stem cell treatment, that can not be done from adult derived stem cells and doesn't contract cancer within five years, get back with us.
I'm sure we both realize how dumb that is. Human rights has become a question of wardrobe? This makes sense how?
Here is what the Geneva Protocols define as POW's
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Sorry, but those planting road side bombs and then blend back into the population do not qualify. If you have a problem with this, please take it up with the governments who have signed on to the Geneva Convention.
Talk to someone who has served in country. If you can refrain from insulting them long enough to actually listen to what they tell you.
Straw man much?
"If you don't agree with me you hate American soldiers!"
Um, the GP never said that, YOU did. It was actually YOU who committed the Straw Man fallacy.
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
The GP was saying that those who were there probably know more than those who were not and he assumed that you had neither been there nor had spoken with someone who has. You changed his argument to mean something that it didn't and then shot it down. Textbook Straw Man argument.
What would you do if some bunch of foreigners rolled into your country and started acting like occupiers? That's right, you'd shoot them.
That depends. Has my country been at war with itself for 25 years, the population starving, little girls stoned to death for the crime of getting raped and the "invaders" come with food and promising to grant us freedom and leave?
Uh... no. I don't think I'd shoot them at all. For that matter, I'd shoot you for shooting at them.
Wait... are you talking about Iraq? Then the answer is different...
That depends. Has my country been under the thumb of a ruthless dictator thug for 25 years, the population starving, little girls stoned to death for the crime of getting raped and the "invaders" come with food and promising to grant us freedom and leave?
Uh... no. I don't think I'd shoot them at all. For that matter, I'd shoot you for shooting at them.
Hell, if the USA were somehow occupied, the same could be said of many USAsian households (in the south particularly).
Sorry, but there is a huge difference between the hand gun and a pump-action 12-gauge you'll find locked in a gun case in your typical American home and the 75 AK-47's, 25 RPG's, truck mounted 20-mm AA machine gun and recoless rifle that is hidden under the floor boards in the baby's room that you find in your not-so-typical Afghan hut.
An "enemy combatant" is a POW who is not subject to the Geneva Convention because they are called "enemy combatants".
Uh. NO. They are "enemy combatants" because they fit the legal definition of what a "enemy combatant" is. They are NOT POW's because they fall short of the definition of a POW in several areas, the most obvious is that they were not wearing a uniform. If the Taliban wants Geneva Convention protections, they can issue their "soldiers" uniforms. If they can afford AK-47's and RPGs, they can afford a friggin pair of pants and a shirt!
Defensive mechanisms are not designed BY the machines to protect themselves. They were designed by man to protect people or the machines from misuse. Otherwise, no guided missile would ever find its target. It would try to land itself safely without detonating its payload to preserve itself.
computer users, but when the network is down all bets are off. No matter how good the experience normally is, one lightning storm is all it will take to send johnny user off to computers are us to buy a full functioning pc.
Actually, it will be bandwidth caps that will hurt this idea.
Please don't try and use scientific arguments to support that which is inherently faith-based and is _not_ provable (nor disprovable). Having said that, to try and use the absence of evidence against god as evidence for god is pathetic. Why do theists suddenly (after thousands of years) require proof for their beliefs?!?
Fair enough. But don't try to list the scientific fields of study that disprove what you just said is disprovable.
My post was referring to young-earth creationists.
You simply said "creationists". You didn't specify YEC's. Yes, YEC's are a subset of Creationists, but they do not make up the whole. It would be like me railing against Democrats because of their socialists views, even though not all Democrats are socialists.
Having said this, to describe the big-bang theory as supporting "the idea that God created the universe" is ridiculous. While it seems possible that a "first mover" could have started the big-bang and created the universe, there is no evidence. In fact, we have no empirical evidence for god whatsoever.
I am also confused by your links, since neither of them even contain the word "god"!
True. However, Lematre was driven by God. The Bible says that God is the creator the heavens and the earth. That means that the universe had a creation. The thinking at the time, as put forth by Einstein, was that the universe was static. A static universe had no creation, and thus no creator. So, even though the articles don't spell it out, proving the possibility of Creationism on a cosmic scale was the goal of Lematre.
Which would you consider more noble, ethics that I follow because I have decided that it is genuinely the right and proper thing to do by my own reasoning, or ethics that I follow because I am afraid of being punished for my transgressions in either this or the next life? I'd argue the former; an ethical system that derives its power from fear of the whip is not an ethical system at all, its slavish servitude.
There is a problem with your line of thinking. Let me give a hypothetical example to explain.
First, nearly all religions say that cheating and lying are wrong, period. No excuse. Even if you won't get caught or you think you are doing it for good reason, they are wrong.
Now let's say there is an election and you are an election official. You fully support Candidate X and know with all your heart that he will lead the country in the right direction. The election comes down to your district and your candidate has lost your district by a very small margin. You have some test ballots laying around that are identical to the real thing. You can place these in the box and no one would be the wiser. There is no chance of you getting caught. Do you stuff the ballot box?
Of course, religion based ethics say no. But what about your own, non-religious ethics?
Let's just think for a moment about which branches of science contradict creationism: biology biochemistry genetics physics astronomy astrophysics
I'm sure there are other _genres_ of science too. Are you really saying that it doesn't matter if a leader of society believes that all the scientists working in these fields are wrong?
Believing in creationism is like believing the earth is flat, and would have huge consequences in many many public policy areas.
I'll just take the last three, physics, astronomy, and astrophysics, and use one example to prove you wrong. Now, go read up on THISGUY who used all three of these to support the idea that God created the universe.
Now, don't get me wrong, I find flat eathers and young earth creationists just as annoying as you do, so please don't lump all "creationists" together. Many are brilliant scientists who present valid cases for differing levels of creationism based on actual science, much like the example I listed above.
It's ridiculed, because what she said didn't make much sense. She was asked if she had foreign policy experience. Being in close proximity to a foreign country does not count. Maybe the reason Fey's statement is linked so much to the actual statement is because it was a good summation.
It doesn't particularly matter. Politicians say dumb things.
Sorry, I just get frustrated due to certain "untruths" that are repeated enough to be assumed try by the ignorant public. Sarah Palin said, "I can see Russia from my house!", GWBush banned all stem cell research, GWBush said that Iraq was responsible for 9-11, GWBush stole Florida, and Dick Cheney leaked Valerie Plame's name are just a couple of examples of items that have stuck in the publics mind and are accepted as truth, even though they are simply not true.
You forgot to point out that Kinda is not a word either, but I never claimed to be a grammar Nazi. For that matter, I would spell "grammar" wrong if Firefox didn't have a spellchecker installed by default. The closest I ever came to earning an English grad was when I was banging one back in college.
I was simply pointing out that if you live in glass houses... well, you know the rest.
Hersh gave a speech last week to the ACLU making the charge that children were sodomized in front of women in the prison, and the Pentagon has tape of it.
So that's it? A guy made a speech to the ACLU and says it so it must be true? Seriously, just because you WANT to believe it, doesn't make it true, moron! People give speeches that say aliens from outer space were the real culprits behind 9-11. Other people give speeches that say souls were flown to earth on 747's by Xenu.
Just because someone says it in a speech doesn't make it true. Still, I shouldn't to tell you that, but it does prove the point that I keep making: "If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the truth."
You are a liar. Bush's "re-election" (his first actual election) was won primarily because they snuck so many anti-equality laws on the ballots. The bigoted wingnuts came out of the woodwork and voted for Bush while they were there.
You mean like when Bush signed the "Defense of Marriage Act"? Oh wait...
Still, I've never heard a Republican say that "Teh GAYS are coming to steal yer marriages!!!!11", and you've had two chances to provide such a link.
I'm going to leave most of the rest alone since you don't understand the definition of a POW, as defined by the Geneva convention and you can only site sources that are shady at best. Salon.com? There's a reliable, fair news source. Still, all Salon talked about was Abu Ghraib, which had nothing to do with Republicans. For that matter, Republicans prosecuted those involved. Wait, how am I the liar again?
Iraq had something, anything to do with 9/11!
I have never heard a Republican say this, yet it keeps getting repeated over and over as if it's true. And what do you know, many of the exceedingly ignorant and borderline retarded believe it.
Liar.
Let's see, from the VERY FIRST SENTENCE of you BBC link:
Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington...
Uh, I'm sorry, how am I a liar again? You say that Republicans said Iraq had something to do with 9/11, then provide a link that says that they never did. Hmmm. Sounds like your own link proved that one of us is lying here, and evidently, it's not me.
Granted, the rest of the sentence does say that somehow "he has repeatedly associated the two", and then gives a few quotes that really have nothing to do with it. For example, here is a Bush quote from the article:
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.
Saddam's Iraq paid $20,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That is what was meant and cited as how Saddam supported terror.
Here's another that is closer, but still no link:
Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.
Hmmm. Still doesn't say Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. Bush is referring to a Russian intelligence report Putin forwarded to Bush:
Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country.
There are several more quotes about Iraq training and/or harboring terrorists, which were true. Still, nothing that shows that Iraq had anything to with 9-11. For that matter, the BBC and several of sources go out of their way to mention that Bush NEVER said that Iraq had anything to with it. The BBC even says, "US President George W Bush has explicitly stated for the first time that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks." That's kinda the exact opposite of saying that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9-11 attacks and the exact opposite of what you accuse Republicans of doing... FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE!
The rest of your links are pretty much a joke. Huffington post? Please! That's not a source. It's a blog by CELEBRITIES! Give me a break. The scoop.com link talks about
Isn't it neat how people condemn the person given the card instead of the EDUCATOR who gave the card to him?
Instead? LOL. I blame both, but I only know the name of one of them, which also happens to be the only one in a position of national power and celebrity at the time.
And sorry, it's a real WTF that either of them couldn't spell.
To be fair, Quayle's job was not to educate our children. Never has a national crisis been solved or solvable by the correct spelling of "potato".
If its sooooo secret then couldn't fox have strung him up for reveling the location WITHOUT reveling it. The story is that he revealed the location, there is no need to report what locations!
Couldn't the press have just strung up the military for detainee abuses without showing the pictures? The story is that detainees were abused. there is no need to show the pictures.
Keep displaying faux outrage about every minor thing that comes up in relation to Democratic Party in desperate attempt to change subject from the economic catastrophe Bush/Cheney caused.
Um, I might want to point out that the economy was doing quite well until the Democrats took over Congress. So what you call a Bush/Cheney catastrophe was actually a Pelosi/Reid catastrophe. Actually, to be completely fair, we can trace this back to the failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That would make it a Dodd/Frank catastrophe.
Remember, according to the Constitution, Congress controls the purse strings, and therefor the economy, not the President. All the president does is sign the budget into law or veto it, causing a governmental shut down.
Slashdot Mirror
No, they can't. Tehre are serious problems with the techniques which make them not as usable and in many cases worthless for research.
Citation please. I've heard that some of the "approved" stem cell lines can not be used in actual human trials, but so what? You use government funding and government approved stem cell lines. You get a breakthrough. Use that breakthrough to get private funding and dump all government funding and imposed limitations. Profit!
Who the fuck started spreading that lie?
Um... it looks like you are.
Kind of completely ignored my post, didn't you? Again, not everything in biology is for immediate use. Biology is a science. Cell biology as a scientific inquiry into the workings of the cell, ESC have already proven themselves as valuable research models. Again I'm pointing to IPSC as one of the biggest successes with ESC research.
It's fine to point out that no cures have come from ESC yet, but they do have other valuable uses.
You are correct, research is a long process. However, at some point, you have to put aside you political ideology and accept that there may be better ways. The fact remains that even though adult derived stem cells are a fairly new thing, there have been more actual cures from adult stem cells (greater than zero) than there have been from embryonic stem cells (exactly zero) which have been around longer. Adult derived cells have the added bonus of having no political objections for using them. So, why on earth would you insist on continuing to research embryonic stem cells? That would be like demanding funding for cold fusion research AFTER another cheap and clean energy source had been found.
Hell, even the founder of stem cell research now objects to using embryonic stem cells now that adult derived stem cells are offering better results. See my sig for the quote.
I'd give up now, unfortunately the whole embryonic stem cell debate brings out the religious right who ignore studies. They seem use strawman arguments to try to push their own agenda.
The rest of us who do actually read studies and support embryonic stem cells know what you're getting at.
I bet these religious nuts don't even realise how much embryonic material (not just stem cells) are used in science. In fact, one of my friends when working in a neuroscience institution was quite frank with the fact she used aborted human embryos in her research. They keep it low key to stop the religious nuts from protesting or doing something destructive to the labs.
It seems the most ill informed people in the world would prefer to see adults die rather than an aborted embryo be used for research.
If you informed yourself, you would understand the objection. You see, some people have a problem saying who is human and who is not. I mean, if it has human DNA, brain waves, heart beat, can feel pain and so on, it's human, right? Well, some people say it's human, or at least don't have the gaul to declare who is human and who is "sub-human", and they're not really "crazy" or "ill informed" in that belief. If I gave you an "aborted embryo" at eight months gestation and a one month prematurely born baby that had died during child birth, you would be hard pressed to tell me the difference between the two. Why would one be considered human and the other not? Who TF are we to decide that? How powerful is a government that can deem someone non-human?
OK, either way, so some people think that human embryos are human BECAUSE they are informed. Now, if you believed that dead human beings were being used for scientific research without their prior consent, wouldn't YOU speak up? Wouldn't YOU stand up for the rights of those that can not stand up for themselves? These people would, and they do. For that, they are called "religious nuts", "ill informed" and "religious right who ignore studies". Sadly, it's YOU who are ignorant of them, not the other way around.
It was in RATS!
So what?
And they had to inject them within 7 DAYS of the injury!
Which is pretty typical of initial trials. I never said this was a full-blown, ready to use treatment.
OK, but that's not what I'd call a breakthrough, which is what the GP was asking for.
We've been able to hook up devices to roaches heads and use joysticks to move them around, but that's not exactly what I'd call mind control either.
When a Christopher Reeves type patient gets up and walks from an embryonic stem cell treatment, that can not be done from adult derived stem cells and doesn't contract cancer within five years, get back with us.
I'm sure we both realize how dumb that is. Human rights has become a question of wardrobe? This makes sense how?
Here is what the Geneva Protocols define as POW's
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
* that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
* that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
* that of carrying arms openly;
* that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
Sorry, but those planting road side bombs and then blend back into the population do not qualify. If you have a problem with this, please take it up with the governments who have signed on to the Geneva Convention.
Fair enough. I only read the parent comment which is what I thought you were referring to.
Talk to someone who has served in country. If you can refrain from insulting them long enough to actually listen to what they tell you.
Straw man much?
"If you don't agree with me you hate American soldiers!"
Um, the GP never said that, YOU did. It was actually YOU who committed the Straw Man fallacy.
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
The GP was saying that those who were there probably know more than those who were not and he assumed that you had neither been there nor had spoken with someone who has. You changed his argument to mean something that it didn't and then shot it down. Textbook Straw Man argument.
What would you do if some bunch of foreigners rolled into your country and started acting like occupiers? That's right, you'd shoot them.
That depends. Has my country been at war with itself for 25 years, the population starving, little girls stoned to death for the crime of getting raped and the "invaders" come with food and promising to grant us freedom and leave?
Uh... no. I don't think I'd shoot them at all. For that matter, I'd shoot you for shooting at them.
Wait... are you talking about Iraq? Then the answer is different...
That depends. Has my country been under the thumb of a ruthless dictator thug for 25 years, the population starving, little girls stoned to death for the crime of getting raped and the "invaders" come with food and promising to grant us freedom and leave?
Uh... no. I don't think I'd shoot them at all. For that matter, I'd shoot you for shooting at them.
There, fixed that for me.
Hell, if the USA were somehow occupied, the same could be said of many USAsian households (in the south particularly).
Sorry, but there is a huge difference between the hand gun and a pump-action 12-gauge you'll find locked in a gun case in your typical American home and the 75 AK-47's, 25 RPG's, truck mounted 20-mm AA machine gun and recoless rifle that is hidden under the floor boards in the baby's room that you find in your not-so-typical Afghan hut.
An "enemy combatant" is a POW who is not subject to the Geneva Convention because they are called "enemy combatants".
Uh. NO. They are "enemy combatants" because they fit the legal definition of what a "enemy combatant" is. They are NOT POW's because they fall short of the definition of a POW in several areas, the most obvious is that they were not wearing a uniform. If the Taliban wants Geneva Convention protections, they can issue their "soldiers" uniforms. If they can afford AK-47's and RPGs, they can afford a friggin pair of pants and a shirt!
Defensive mechanisms are not designed BY the machines to protect themselves. They were designed by man to protect people or the machines from misuse. Otherwise, no guided missile would ever find its target. It would try to land itself safely without detonating its payload to preserve itself.
computer users, but when the network is down all bets are off. No matter how good the experience normally is, one lightning storm is all it will take to send johnny user off to computers are us to buy a full functioning pc.
Actually, it will be bandwidth caps that will hurt this idea.
What else has she been in? I'd not heard of her till this terminator show.
Never heard of Firefly?
Please turn in your geek card at the door on your way out.
Thank You.
Please don't try and use scientific arguments to support that which is inherently faith-based and is _not_ provable (nor disprovable). Having said that, to try and use the absence of evidence against god as evidence for god is pathetic. Why do theists suddenly (after thousands of years) require proof for their beliefs?!?
Fair enough. But don't try to list the scientific fields of study that disprove what you just said is disprovable.
My post was referring to young-earth creationists.
You simply said "creationists". You didn't specify YEC's. Yes, YEC's are a subset of Creationists, but they do not make up the whole. It would be like me railing against Democrats because of their socialists views, even though not all Democrats are socialists.
Having said this, to describe the big-bang theory as supporting "the idea that God created the universe" is ridiculous. While it seems possible that a "first mover" could have started the big-bang and created the universe, there is no evidence. In fact, we have no empirical evidence for god whatsoever.
I am also confused by your links, since neither of them even contain the word "god"!
True. However, Lematre was driven by God. The Bible says that God is the creator the heavens and the earth. That means that the universe had a creation. The thinking at the time, as put forth by Einstein, was that the universe was static. A static universe had no creation, and thus no creator. So, even though the articles don't spell it out, proving the possibility of Creationism on a cosmic scale was the goal of Lematre.
Which would you consider more noble, ethics that I follow because I have decided that it is genuinely the right and proper thing to do by my own reasoning, or ethics that I follow because I am afraid of being punished for my transgressions in either this or the next life? I'd argue the former; an ethical system that derives its power from fear of the whip is not an ethical system at all, its slavish servitude.
There is a problem with your line of thinking. Let me give a hypothetical example to explain.
First, nearly all religions say that cheating and lying are wrong, period. No excuse. Even if you won't get caught or you think you are doing it for good reason, they are wrong.
Now let's say there is an election and you are an election official. You fully support Candidate X and know with all your heart that he will lead the country in the right direction. The election comes down to your district and your candidate has lost your district by a very small margin. You have some test ballots laying around that are identical to the real thing. You can place these in the box and no one would be the wiser. There is no chance of you getting caught. Do you stuff the ballot box?
Of course, religion based ethics say no. But what about your own, non-religious ethics?
Let's just think for a moment about which branches of science contradict creationism:
biology
biochemistry
genetics
physics
astronomy
astrophysics
I'm sure there are other _genres_ of science too. Are you really saying that it doesn't matter if a leader of society believes that all the scientists working in these fields are wrong?
Believing in creationism is like believing the earth is flat, and would have huge consequences in many many public policy areas.
I'll just take the last three, physics, astronomy, and astrophysics, and use one example to prove you wrong. Now, go read up on THIS GUY who used all three of these to support the idea that God created the universe.
Now, don't get me wrong, I find flat eathers and young earth creationists just as annoying as you do, so please don't lump all "creationists" together. Many are brilliant scientists who present valid cases for differing levels of creationism based on actual science, much like the example I listed above.
Religion and science are NOT mutually exclusive.
Yeah, I posted a mea culpa and you are right.
It's ridiculed, because what she said didn't make much sense. She was asked if she had foreign policy experience. Being in close proximity to a foreign country does not count. Maybe the reason Fey's statement is linked so much to the actual statement is because it was a good summation.
It doesn't particularly matter. Politicians say dumb things.
Sorry, I just get frustrated due to certain "untruths" that are repeated enough to be assumed try by the ignorant public. Sarah Palin said, "I can see Russia from my house!", GWBush banned all stem cell research, GWBush said that Iraq was responsible for 9-11, GWBush stole Florida, and Dick Cheney leaked Valerie Plame's name are just a couple of examples of items that have stuck in the publics mind and are accepted as truth, even though they are simply not true.
You forgot to point out that Kinda is not a word either, but I never claimed to be a grammar Nazi. For that matter, I would spell "grammar" wrong if Firefox didn't have a spellchecker installed by default. The closest I ever came to earning an English grad was when I was banging one back in college.
I was simply pointing out that if you live in glass houses... well, you know the rest.
Wait! Here is the part from your salon.com link:
Hersh gave a speech last week to the ACLU making the charge that children were sodomized in front of women in the prison, and the Pentagon has tape of it.
So that's it? A guy made a speech to the ACLU and says it so it must be true? Seriously, just because you WANT to believe it, doesn't make it true, moron! People give speeches that say aliens from outer space were the real culprits behind 9-11. Other people give speeches that say souls were flown to earth on 747's by Xenu.
Just because someone says it in a speech doesn't make it true. Still, I shouldn't to tell you that, but it does prove the point that I keep making: "If you repeat a lie long enough, it becomes the truth."
You are a liar. Bush's "re-election" (his first actual election) was won primarily because they snuck so many anti-equality laws on the ballots. The bigoted wingnuts came out of the woodwork and voted for Bush while they were there.
You mean like when Bush signed the "Defense of Marriage Act"? Oh wait...
Still, I've never heard a Republican say that "Teh GAYS are coming to steal yer marriages!!!!11", and you've had two chances to provide such a link.
I'm going to leave most of the rest alone since you don't understand the definition of a POW, as defined by the Geneva convention and you can only site sources that are shady at best. Salon.com? There's a reliable, fair news source. Still, all Salon talked about was Abu Ghraib, which had nothing to do with Republicans. For that matter, Republicans prosecuted those involved. Wait, how am I the liar again?
Iraq had something, anything to do with 9/11!
I have never heard a Republican say this, yet it keeps getting repeated over and over as if it's true. And what do you know, many of the exceedingly ignorant and borderline retarded believe it.
Liar.
Let's see, from the VERY FIRST SENTENCE of you BBC link:
Mr Bush has never directly accused the former Iraqi leader of having a hand in the attacks on New York and Washington...
Uh, I'm sorry, how am I a liar again? You say that Republicans said Iraq had something to do with 9/11, then provide a link that says that they never did. Hmmm. Sounds like your own link proved that one of us is lying here, and evidently, it's not me.
Granted, the rest of the sentence does say that somehow "he has repeatedly associated the two", and then gives a few quotes that really have nothing to do with it. For example, here is a Bush quote from the article:
Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror.
Saddam's Iraq paid $20,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers. That is what was meant and cited as how Saddam supported terror.
Here's another that is closer, but still no link:
Before 11 September 2001, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents and lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons, and other plans - this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take just one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known.
Hmmm. Still doesn't say Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. Bush is referring to a Russian intelligence report Putin forwarded to Bush:
Russian President Vladimir Putin said yesterday that his intelligence service had warned the Bush administration before the U.S. invasion of Iraq that Saddam Hussein's government was planning attacks against U.S. targets both inside and outside the country.
There are several more quotes about Iraq training and/or harboring terrorists, which were true. Still, nothing that shows that Iraq had anything to with 9-11. For that matter, the BBC and several of sources go out of their way to mention that Bush NEVER said that Iraq had anything to with it. The BBC even says, "US President George W Bush has explicitly stated for the first time that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 11 September attacks." That's kinda the exact opposite of saying that Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9-11 attacks and the exact opposite of what you accuse Republicans of doing... FROM YOUR OWN SOURCE!
The rest of your links are pretty much a joke. Huffington post? Please! That's not a source. It's a blog by CELEBRITIES! Give me a break. The scoop.com link talks about
Isn't it neat how people condemn the person given the card instead of the EDUCATOR who gave the card to him?
Instead? LOL. I blame both, but I only know the name of one of them, which also happens to be the only one in a position of national power and celebrity at the time.
And sorry, it's a real WTF that either of them couldn't spell.
To be fair, Quayle's job was not to educate our children. Never has a national crisis been solved or solvable by the correct spelling of "potato".
Uh, what? That's not a debunking, that's a confirmation. He needed a fucking card to spell potato? Nice work there, spanky.
I bet Quayle knows to capitalize a proper name, even if it's a fake one, there Sparky.
Kinda sux when someone grammar Nazi's you, doesn't it?
If its sooooo secret then couldn't fox have strung him up for reveling the location WITHOUT reveling it. The story is that he revealed the location, there is no need to report what locations!
Couldn't the press have just strung up the military for detainee abuses without showing the pictures? The story is that detainees were abused. there is no need to show the pictures.
Keep displaying faux outrage about every minor thing that comes up in relation to Democratic Party in desperate attempt to change subject from the economic catastrophe Bush/Cheney caused.
Um, I might want to point out that the economy was doing quite well until the Democrats took over Congress. So what you call a Bush/Cheney catastrophe was actually a Pelosi/Reid catastrophe. Actually, to be completely fair, we can trace this back to the failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That would make it a Dodd/Frank catastrophe.
Remember, according to the Constitution, Congress controls the purse strings, and therefor the economy, not the President. All the president does is sign the budget into law or veto it, causing a governmental shut down.