NCclimber

I notice New York Times readers didn't feature among the best educated, either.

The reason Lucky is getting trounced is because he's talking through his hat. His experience may have been valid at the time, but his recollection of the military ISN'T the way it is now. Is this kind of like asserting the Earth is flat because that's how it looks to me?

But the bigger question is how will we be impacted? The World's oil reserves have been declining for decades. Technically, we've been running out for over a century. On a tangential issue, why are oil prices not rising? The election was eight days ago.

Kind of like all that attention the BSA has received in recent years.

Can you imagine the public outcry if Toys for Tots accepted and distributed these religious dolls? No doubt it would get turned into a First Amendment/Separation of Church and State issue. And the media would have been all over it. Lots of drama. Lots.

I think the claims so many people object to are those that say our enlistees are below average/sub-standard/on par with manual laborers and that so many enlistees join because their other options are decidedly worse.

I liked this gem: Average enlistee = manual laborer. Classic.

And centuries from now, people will laugh at many of today's widely accepted theories.

B/c then you need a system (which would ultimately have a ton of gray area) to determine whether or not said condo dweller wants the SUV b/c it is fashionable or whether said big-city dude has an actual need for it, too--even if that need is toting all the latest fashions from the atelier to the fashion show. Or, is that a lesser need than a farmer toting oranges? However would we decide? Then of course, you'd have to widdle through applications for such a "determiner" in an attempt to find one that doesn't have a pre-conceived animosity toward big-city folk & their so-called fashions. By that sentiment, isn't a Ferrari also a fossil-fuel burning "fashion"? Would the tax on sportier fashions be greater or less than spacious ones? I think Kallend's point has to do with the utility part of SUV. If you actually need an SUV, then you should not be subjected to all the same costs as someone who drives one for purely personal (read - selfish) reasons. For the overwhelming majority of SUV drivers, owning that type of vehicle is a luxury.. not a necessity.

Could someone please tell me how life began on this planet? Is there any kind of consensus in the scientific community beyond "we just don't know"? Has anyone made an acceptable case, that meets the supposedly rigorous standards of the scientific community? A theory that has held up over time?

Did you come up with that all by yourself?

Kallend seems to be big on pointing out fallacies. Is this a red herring?

Is this what you wrote? You could try explaining what you ACTUALLY meant instead of just telling others they have an inaccurate version. Repeating different forms of "you're wrong" over and over isn't really that persuasive.

Do you have much firsthand experience on this matter?

Are you saying the global impact of driving an SUV is $500.00 per trip?

For posterity

It makes it far more probable. I agree, but just because one explanation is superior to others, that doesn't make it absolute, indisputable fact.

Well, at least there's a body of evidence supporting evolutionary theory. There's no evidence whatsoever supporting the existence of gods. I see. Since there is a more evidence for your belief, then that makes it true? Fabricating straw men seems to be a strength of yours. Since there's no evidence whatsoever for the existence of gods, how likely is it that gods exist? Speaking of strawmen, when did I mention God (or gods) in this thread. Apparently you need a lesson in what a "straw man" is. I guess you are just good at making them by accident. I thought is was basically a misrepresentation of an opponent's position. Is this wrong? Considering you seem inclined to throw around the term, how about explaining how your replies quoted in this post are not strawmen. From what I read, every one of your replies is a strawman.

Well, at least there's a body of evidence supporting evolutionary theory. There's no evidence whatsoever supporting the existence of gods. I see. Since there is a more evidence for your belief, then that makes it true? Fabricating straw men seems to be a strength of yours. Since there's no evidence whatsoever for the existence of gods, how likely is it that gods exist? Speaking of strawmen, when did I mention God (or gods) in this thread.

Is this the best "silver lining" you can find in last week's poll results? Oh look... It's a strawman.

Isn't it kinda logical for a person who believes in personal freedoms to be opposed to those people who think they shouldn't have those freedoms? Blues, Dave You mean like Freedom of Speech? The right to say things that others may find particularly offensive? You know... all the anti-Bush rhetoric and the negative steroetypes that regularly get pinned on his supporters.

I notice you frequently make irrelevant posts and when called on them, you reply with more irrelevant posts. I wonder why???

I love that argument. It's the Puritans all over again. They made themselves SO obnoxious with their intolerance and their attempts to impose their ways on everyone else in Britain that eventually they were asked to shut-up or leave. But their version (which is taught to kindergarteners across the US) is that the Pilgrims left on account of religious intolerance in Britain. Sorry, we're wise to that. What does your post have to do with mine?

Do you know what ironic means?

Does anyone else think it's ironic that Joe Leiberman is now in such an infuencial position considering the Dems kicked him to the curb, back in August? Talk about an interesting turn of events.