jclalor

I see you have been registered since 2004, could you please provide some of your earlier post complaining about Bush hitting the campaign trail for Republicans. I have a funny feeling you can't. You do realize that every president does this? Perhaps you just think that because some dumb fuck Christian network bitches about Obama, that republicans would never do the same thing. Perhaps one of the most shallow threads I have seen in a while. You do know all Presidents do this?

I think you are confused. Atheist are not looking for people to prove to them that God is real, we are way past that point. If you applied this same standard of proof to every other aspect of your life, you would have starved to death by now.

Not in the least, the burden of proof always rest with the person making the claim. If I claim there is an invisable man under my bed, and if you disagree, do you bare the burden to provide the proof to prove me wrong? Unless I provide to you convincing evidence, you can reject my claim outright.

That's my point...I think you would, if you had more muscle than brains. You guys abuse your intellect in the same way a bully abuses his strength. As usual, you speak entirely for yourself. Come back if you ever get a clue. Arguing with the believers is the same as doing this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5rJ4g9EMUk

How often do I cut and paste or link something?

Recent discoveries prove that even at the microscopic level life has a quality of complexity that could not have come about through evolution. ‘Irreducible complexity’ is the battle cry of Michael J. Behe of Lehigh University, author of Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution. As a household example of irreducible complexity, Behe chooses the mousetrap—a machine that could not function if any of its pieces were missing and whose pieces have no value except as parts of the whole. What is true of the mousetrap, he says, is even truer of the bacterial flagellum, a whiplike cellular organelle used for propulsion that operates like an outboard motor. The proteins that make up a flagellum are uncannily arranged into motor components, a universal joint, and other structures like those that a human engineer might specify. The possibility that this intricate array could have arisen through evolutionary modification is virtually nil, Behe argues, and that bespeaks intelligent design. [SA 84] Indeed, it does (see diagram below). Bacterial flagellum with rotary motor, with the following features: Self assembly and repair Water-cooled rotary engine Proton motive force drive system Forward and reverse gears Operating speeds of up to 100,000 rpm Direction reversing capability within 1/4 of a turn Hard-wired signal transduction system with short-term memory [from Bacterial Flagella: Paradigm for Design, video, ] He makes similar points about the blood’s clotting mechanism and other molecular systems. Yet evolutionary biologists have answers to these objections. First, there exist flagellae with forms simpler than the one that Behe cites, so it is not necessary for all those components to be present for a flagellum to work. The sophisticated components of this flagellum all have precedents elsewhere in nature, as described by Kenneth R. Miller of Brown University and others. [SA 84] Miller is hardly the epitome of reliability. Behe has also responded to critics such as Miller.7 In fact, the entire flagellum assembly is extremely similar to an organelle that Yersinia pestis, the bubonic plague bacterium, uses to inject toxins into cells. [SA 84] This actually comes from the National Center for Science Education’s misuses of the research of Dr Scott Minnich, a geneticist and associate professor of microbiology at the University of Idaho. He is a world-class expert on the flagellum who says that belief in design has given him many research insights. His research shows that the flagellum won’t form above 37°C, and instead some secretory organelles form from the same set of genes. But this secretory apparatus, as well as the plague bacterium’s drilling apparatus, are a degeneration from the flagellum, which Minnich says came first although it is more complex.8 The key is that the flagellum’s component structures, which Behe suggests have no value apart from their role in propulsion, can serve multiple functions that would have helped favor their evolution. [SA 84] Actually, what Behe says he means by irreducible complexity is that the flagellum could not work without about 40 protein components all organized in the right way. Scientific American’s argument is like claiming that if the components of an electric motor already exist in an electrical shop, they could assemble by themselves into a working motor. However, the right organization is just as important as the right components. The final evolution of the flagellum might then have involved only the novel recombination of sophisticated parts that initially evolved for other purposes. [SA 84] Minnich points out that only about 10 of the 40 components can be explained by co-option, but the other 30 are brand new. Also, the very process of assembly in the right sequence requires other regulatory machines, so is in itself irreducibly complex. Irreducible complexity I guess you did not view my link. It refutes everything Behe claims.

And the "intelligent mind" to which you refer requires orders of magnitude greater "irreducible complexity" than that which actually exists. Try again. Interesting, William of Ockham, was a theist. I doubt he would agree with the way you are interpreting his philosophy. ... The creator of the term "irreducible complexity" being blown out of the water using his best example. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_5FToP_mMY

10 minutes in the tunnel, probelm solved.

Im glad he is clear on how much.

*** As a landlord, I hate this advice, but it's very true. Depending on the state laws, it can be very hard to evict someone. It should not bother you to hear advice to stop paying an unhonerable and dishonest landlord, I would never try and screw an honest landlord. I never meant to imply that she should screw someone on the rent. If her origional landlord does not own the property, and it then can sometimes take the bank months to sort things out. I'm just suggesting she should hang out until it's all sorted out. I am also not telling her to fight evictions and all of that. I'm just suggesting to hang out until someone says your out, and that sometimes can take months when banks have no idea what's going on..

Anything for a buck. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/03/huckabee-cartoon-attempts-woeful-retelling-of-911-attacks/

*** I once lost my two year ... but I finally won her back.

+1

It looks real, but i'm a skeptic. http://www.boobootv.com/2011/01/03/wtf-ukraine-baby-yoga/

Have you ever looked at these in the polls you post? But, in the end, polls are just indicators and all should be taken with a grain of salt Oh, and in your list, how come you only come up to June 7? Because they were all from one link, I showed you plenty of other polls that were current. Remember when I ask you to show me one poll that showed people were not overwhemingly in favor of raising taxes on millionaires? After the Norwegian shooter thread, even when you are shown to be wrong, in conditions that were the closet thing to laboratory settings you can find, you still would not admit fault.

These, just to name a view, I can go back and find the rest. I think you said something about that you dont trust ANY mianstream news source on polls. A June 7 Pew poll found strong support for tax increases to reduce the deficit; 67 percent of people favor raising the wage cap for Social Security taxes, 66 percent raising income tax rates on those making more than $250,000, and 62 percent favor limiting tax deductions for large corporations. A plurality of people would also limit the mortgage interest deduction. A May 26 Lake Research poll of Colorado voters found that they support higher taxes on the rich to shore-up Social Security’s finances by a 44 percent to 25 percent margin. A May 13 Bloomberg poll found that only one third of people believe it is possible to substantially reduce the budget deficit without higher taxes; two thirds do not. A May 12 Ipsos/Reuters poll found that three-fifths of people would support higher taxes to reduce the deficit. A May 4 Quinnipiac poll found that people favor raising taxes on those making more than $250,000 to reduce the deficit by a 69 percent to 28 percent margin. An April 29 Gallup poll found that only 20 percent of people believe the budget deficit should be reduced only by cutting spending; 76 percent say that higher taxes must play a role. An April 25 USC/Los Angeles Times poll of Californians found that by about a 2-to-1 margin voters favor raising taxes to deal with the state’s budget problems over cutting spending alone. An April 22 New York Times/CBS News poll found that 72 percent of people favor raising taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit. It also found that 66 percent of people believe tax increases will be necessary to reduce the deficit versus 19 percent who believe spending cuts alone are sufficient. An April 20 Washington Post/ABC News poll found that by a 2-to-1 margin people favor a combination of higher taxes and spending cuts over spending cuts alone to reduce the deficit. It also found that 72 percent of people favor raising taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit and it is far and away the most popular deficit reduction measure. An April 20 Public Religion Research Institute poll found that by a 2-to-1 margin, people believe that the wealthy should pay more taxes than the poor or middle class. Also, 62 percent of people believe that growing inequality of wealth is a serious problem. An April 18 McClatchy-Marist poll found that voters support higher taxes on the rich to reduce the deficit by a 2-to-1 margin, including 45 percent of self-identified Tea Party members. An April 18 Gallup poll found that 67 percent of people do not believe that corporations pay their fair share of taxes, and 59 percent believe that the rich do not pay their fair share. On April 1, Tulchin Research released a poll showing that voters in California overwhelmingly support higher taxes on the rich to deal with the state’s budgetary problems. A March 15 ABC News/Washington Post poll found that only 31 percent of voters support the Republican policy of only cutting spending to reduce the deficit; 64 percent believe higher taxes will also be necessary. A March 2 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found that 81 percent of people would support a surtax on millionaires to help reduce the budget deficit, and 68 percent would support eliminating the Bush tax cuts for those earning more than $250,000. A February 15 CBS News poll found that only 49 percent of people believe that reducing the deficit will require cuts in programs that benefit them; 41 percent do not. Also, only 37 percent of people believe that reducing the deficit will require higher taxes on them; 59 percent do not. A January 20 CBS News/New York Times poll found that close to two-thirds of people would rather raise taxes than cut benefits for Social Security or Medicare in order to stabilize their finances. The poll also found that if taxes must be raised, 33 percent would favor a national sales tax, 32 percent would support restricting the mortgage interest deduction, 12 percent would raise the gasoline taxes, and 10 percent would tax health care benefits. On January 3, a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll found that 61 percent of people would rather raise taxes on the rich to balance the budget than cut defense, Social Security or Medicare.

*** Nice to see you finnally found a set of numbers you like. And you say that because? I rarely watch any of them Just found it interesting If you are saying something about polling I am liking what I am seeing I say that because you are so quick to dismiss any set of numbers that do not support your world veiw. Intellectual dishonesty at it's best. Fox has always had higher ratings than MSNBC, No news there. I think it has to do more with how younger and older veiwes recieve their news.

*** Nice to see you finnally found a set of numbers you like.

Throwing good money after bad. OK, So which is it? "I had this happen to a friend, she talked to an attorney..." [url] She talked to an attorney that does a very popular radio show in the Bay Area. He told her that since the house was to be taken by the bank in a matter of days, stop paying rent to the bank and wait for a 30 day notice from the bank. It came 6 months later. All an attorney going to tell you is that you been screwed. You can sue the landlord in small claims court if you have a lease or he tries and screws you out of a deposit.

Jump.

You mite keep an eye on Craig's list, but it seems a lot more buyers than sellers. http://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/tia?query=alcatraz&srchType=A&minAsk=&maxAsk=

Yes, yes, yes, all of us renting know how stupid we all are to even ever CONSIDER renting. Of course we're all doing so by (stupid) choice; not that we can't afford our own place or we're trying very hard to save up so we can buy our own place or anything like that. Back to the OP: what is the date on the sale? For as much as I love all the free advice we get here on DZ.com from doctors, lawyers, teachers, business people, zombie hunters, and dominatrices, the best thing to do would be to buy an hour of a lawyer's time and sit down with them and have a little face time talking about the particulars of your case. It'll be well worth it in the long run. Elvisio "househunting as we speak" Rodriguezy] The scumbag landlord lost the house, the new owner will owe her nothing. You can try and go after the landlord, but i'm guessing he aint got shit. I had this happen to a friend, she talked to an attorney and was told to stop paying rent and see what happens. The bank took the house and it took them 7 months to getting around to having her leave. 7 months rent free.

Throwing good money after bad.

Stop paying your rent ASAP, kiss the deposit goodbye, and maybe you can can stay for a few months rent free. This is more common than you think.

This is a live performance, The one on MTV was different. I think. This is the first: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hiJ9AnNz47Y