dorbie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EODjAGD2yN0

I will not vote for anyone who didn't vote against the patriot act if they were in office when it was pushed through. Same for the military commissions act. As for the healthcarestuff™, health care does need work, but I don't think the government taking over is the answer. Should the industry get an asskicking? I normally think the government needs to stay the fuck out of business matters, but this is one of the few cases where I'd support some forced reform. But should the government foot the bill for our health? Absolutely not. Those are the same assholes who won't let us order prescription meds from Canuckia. That leaves you with a very short list. Having listened a little bit to Obama he's naturally articulate and impressive. He doesn't sound like your typical US politician (what little I've heard). It's a shame that a black political figure has to be so much better than the white doofi around him in this country to get noticed unless he's a shit stirrer standing on the shoulders of a victim inciting an angry mob.

Bwahaha! Read past the headlines, the disclosure in response to vocal criticism of the administration fell within their role as public officials. And we DO know exactly who leaked and under what circumstances.

I think he's good. It's easy to dismiss his abilities because of some of the popular roles he's played. I'm reminded of the of U-turn Ann Rice made after seeing his performance in "Interview with a Vampire" saying she liked to think his performance would be remembered like Olivier's Hamlet (w.r.t. that role). When she criticized the casting in the first place she'd obviously never seen "Rain Man" or worse, did and still came away clueless. Yes he's a fruitcake and Scientology isn't a religion, it's not even a cult. LRH dressed it up that way mainly as a tax dodge and legal shelter for his pseudoscience scam.

You have to admit Salman Rushdie had a point though. Or are you claiming he is just another stupid person who doesn't understand Islam?

Not a joke at all. I have written nothing in this thread I wish to retract. This species is overfished, with massive underreporting making stock management impossible. Eating a fish whether legally caught or not contributes to the problem here. Some of the responses highlight the double standard. Eating a legally caught fish does not lessen the impact on the stock. Expect to hear about fish offsets any day now.

Radio host gost goes off on Islam when a Muslim caller objects, it's quite a rant: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=3af_1184708307

No, it's an alien plot to destroy the planet, and I have proof: http://techfreep.com/worlds-largest-supercollider-could-destroy-the-universe.htm

Smash, tinkle.... http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22090734-5001031,00.html Perhaps he can purchase some fish offsets.

That's OK, it'll just make it more difficult for them to hire qualified medical professionals in future. Perhaps this story is not yet over with access to non-Libyan courts.

Only if you want to lead a troop of boy-scouts, otherwise you'll be just fine with your ring.

That's a compliment from some Muslims right? It must be tough for Bush not knowing whether to thank him or not.

It's all in the presentation, see attached. I think my graphs are fairer and point out a couple of minor events. I know you're not saying the internet bubble was sustainable, you'd lose all credibility. And as for the extrapolation of the tax burden ?!. The facts show that tax reached record levels under Clinton and I have been paying attention to Democrat objections to tax cuts, you can't have it both ways. If the Democrats get in we can blame them when the tax burden increases during their tenure, it hasn't happened yet. You should stick with deficit spending, Bush et.al are burning through cash like drunken sailors in a brothel.

Still here?

Just because you say you're being implicitly insulted in an attempt to portray yourself as a martyr doesn't make it so. Please offer us more than appeals to your martyrdom or observations about how people committed to the truth are tightly wound up when all they've done is direct you towards enlightenment on evolution and science. That's not a request for more links to How it Works. You said that already, yet here we are.

I judge the issue based on the evidence & let the chips fall where they may. You should dive for cover behing Gould's nonoverlapping magisteria instead of denying the science. The science debate is beyond recovery for you now, people who deny the science and in particularly those who believe in a young Earth are profoundly ignorant of the science, and in many cases willfully ignorant. That is not pejorative it is just the fact of the matter. You seem to have a lot of emotional equity invested in this matter. I'm not the one railing against the evidence and scientifically established fact. You are always free to attempt a better response than impugning my commitment to the truth. If only you could.

I judge the issue based on the evidence & let the chips fall where they may. You should dive for cover behing Gould's nonoverlapping magisteria instead of denying the science. The science debate is beyond recovery for you now, people who deny the science and in particularly those who believe in a young Earth are profoundly ignorant of the science, and in many cases willfully ignorant. That is not pejorative it is just the fact of the matter.

Perhaps we should bar all prosecutors from saying what defendants are being prosecuted for.... just present the evidence and let the jurors decide what crime was commited and what sentence is appropriate. The difference in this case is clear. There's a difference between a clear cut crime and one where the circumstances may not legally amount to rape. If the jury are to make an objective legal determination on whether events & circumstances amounted to rape then it is prejudicial to have a parade of witnesses call it rape before they deliberate, but perhaps you have a taste for miscarriage of justice. Like it or not the law gives the judge the power he exercised. The "victim" & others then engaged in a publicity campaign to influence the trial outside the courts and compelled the judge to declare a mistrial. Now getting hammered on booze then laid is not her only regret, life is just full of lessons for Tory Bowen.

In posting irrational conspiratorial opinion do you actually expect a reasoned response?

Are you claiming a higher caliber of nonsense has been wielded against evolution in this thread? Nope. Then why the need to resort to low brow retorts? Is that your idea of evidence? You'll need to do better. Ignoring the pot calling the kettle black for a moment, I'm free to use whatever retorts I choose. I've seen a litany of abuse directed towards science and scientists from people with nothing but a 1500 year-old patchwork of borrowed myths. It's not that there are two positions to be debated here, it's an objection to reason using an absolutely infantile prehistoric objection to science, and it goes beyond evolution for the young Earthers. How dare anyone pretend they have a case against such an enormous body of scientific literature in multiple fields backed only by misrepresentations and an old book that predates science and is in fact largely allegorical if you understand the Jewish tradition. Hearing such impoverished people impugn a genius like Darwin, is deeply offensive. Having someone present a complete distortion in ignorance of the facts claiming that the fossil record is flimsy (just one of many branches of corroborating and predicted scientific evidence) is an affront to reason. Don't invite ridicule then object when the mildest hint of it is duly served.

Are you claiming a higher caliber of nonsense has been wielded against evolution in this thread? Being correct with the evidence and scientific community backing my position is the high ground, no pretence is required. If you want to reverse that situation present some evidence (a lot of very compelling evidence) or switch sides.

I must have missed an election somewhere. Congress has agreed to wait until September, unfortunately some want to move the goalposts again.

To have non-scientists debate science with scientists is a joke. I don't know what's funnier, that they disavow evolution with the most simplistic rubbish as if each point is a real zinger or that they actually think there's a role for them in a genuine scientific debate. "Evolution is just a theory." The peanut butter video is classic, as is the banana. You watch those and it's pure entertainment. Irreducible complexity of the eye devastated: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=furcepFlfZ4 Lots of good stuff like that on youtube. But Ali-G gave this debate the respect it truly deserves. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKMhtyI3L8

Thanks for the reference to the news story. Do you think he's right? I don't. I believe he can take responsibility, no doubt. But he would be taking responsibility for failure. Don't worry they are already saying his comments were misconstrued. Expect an imminent U-turn from kallend who will no longer wish to have the Iraqi leader determine our policy on the war. I personally think we should wait until Gen. Patraeus reports before reconsidering the situation.

That was the STOVL version of the JSF designed for the Marines & the Brits (F-35B). The Raptor is the F-22. The brave pilot lost a $50million jet to an unarmed truck in the silliest die-hard scene yet.