KaskadskyjKozak

There is talk about only doing the hand recounts in some districts. Obviously, this would be in those areas where the Dems think they could net a gain in the count. This would only muddy the results.

I agree, and would if the results were the other way around. Imagine if the result does change after a 3rd count. That doesn't strike me as a good way to win - keep counting until it works out for your side? How much of a "mandate" is that? Dino won 2 out of 3 counts, why should the third one decide it? Doesn't it just muddy the results even more?

Nalyvaj no!

This is pretty ridculous - it seems no matter what form of non-lethal weapon is used - stun gun, taser, or pepper-spray, some ACLU type wants to ban it. I'd hate to be a police officer in this day and age.

A kak zhe provodit' vremya v Rosii, esli ne pyesh? You must have had fun za stolom as toast after toast was raised. Davajte vypem za... po-chemu ne pesh, Skotchik? Ty bol'noj? Alkash? :-)))

? maybe you could give me a ten second explanation geek talk

I don't want to get into too much thread drift here... some people start to get mad...

As someone mentioned, the state of science education is pretty piss-poor. Biology is about the most accessible of the three branches (the other being chemistry and physics), but even it seems to be difficult for people to grasp, or be interested in. I worked in Biotech for 8 years, and I long ago gave up trying to explain to people what exactly I did (data management software for R&D projects, LIMS systems, and gene expression analysis software). There is a lot of junk science and bias in the whole global warming debate. It makes it very difficult to know exactly what the whole truth is. I definitely favor more solid research in climate studies.

Again, the bone of contention seems to be macro-evolution and Darwin's theory, not micro-evolution, genetics and so forth. I think even a die hard creationist could be convinced that God made all creatures with the same building blocks (DNA, organelles, cells, etc) and there is no need necessarily to confront the big controversy head-on. It would be very easy to teach all the subject matter you mention in a way that covers all the important concepts without stirring up the debate directly. That's just my opinion - I'm not defending "creationism" here - but sometimes it is useful to find a common ground.

I took AP biology in 10th grade. That was really the only class where evolution was taught in elementary/secondary education - that I can recall, and it constituted a really small portion of the course material. I don't see a problem with deferring this subject matter until college for those areas where this is a sensitive issue, or at least allowing for an opt-out from students. It's really a small part of science curriculum in the big scheme of things. As a caveat I assume we are all talking about macro-evolution here...

What Dodge truck?

Not my point. If I drove more than 30,000 miles a year I had better be a truck driver - that would be a pretty irresponsible way to impact the environment. Take the 10,000 miles a year, divide it by 30 mpg and it comes to a much smaller amount of gasoline than the average driver consumes in a year.

1) A higher proportion of profits still goes oversees. 2) more of the components for foreign cars come from abroad 3) foreign companies with plants in the US do not like their employees to be in unions - so much for worker's rights I did plenty of research when I bought my last car. Honda seemed to have the best record for a foreign auto maker in terms of use of US made parts, assembly plants in the US, and so on.

That attitude exemplifies the elitist hypocrisy that the Democrats portray in their lives. Every time I heard John Kerry and all the little Dem mouthpieces sput off about out-sourcing, union workers, and "working Americans", I thought of asshole liberals, who *really* care only about opposing the bogey man of "Christian right" and very little about the "working American". So what, I had the exact same experience with my American car. And since it was sold in California, it kicked ass on every WA state emissions test.

Doesn't it screw Americans over just as much to make inefficient automobiles that make us more dependent on foreign oil, causing us to meddle in middle eastern affairs and stir up enough hatred to cause some asshole to fly planes into our buildings? It's a stretch, but so is equating buying a foreign car to not caring about Americans. My Ford Escort, which I drove for 11 years, got 30+ miles to the gallon. I drove it less than 10000 miles a year.

It has something to do with disgust at the hypocritical, smoke-up-the-ass-blowing American liberals who feign care and concern for the US economy and card-carrying "working Americans", yet, in droves prefer to screw them by buying foreign cars.

I didn't - in its entirety. One line was sufficient. Now piss off.

someone posted this already

Just wait...

strategery

Damn Scott, how do you really feel?

In theory Creationism != Christianity. In theory. In practice every group pushing creationism in the US is Christian. I would not be surprised if Islamic beliefs are creationist, and, that given time (and a growing Muslim population in the US), these beliefs will become more and more visible. Perhaps this has occurred elsewhere already (i.e. Europe)?

Nice article. I never quite understood why so many people take the text of the Bible so literally. After all, even the newest parts are thousands of years old and translated 3 or 4 times, sometimes well, sometimes poorly, no document is going to survive that in an absolutely pure form. Science in no way negates religion, or negates the divine. As memory serves, the Pope also gave scientists his blessing to research anything up the point of the Big Bang. While the Catholic church may be a little dogmatic in some instances, I can at least respect that a huge amount of thought, prayer, and consideration have gone into every last aspect of their doctrine. Much more than I can say about a lot of organizations. now i'm just rambling so i'll stop The supposed "war" between religion and science is overstated. Those on the side of atheism find comfort in pointing out the ignorance of "creationists" and painting all people of faith with this broad brush-stroke. In reality, there are many people of faith who find that science and religion can coexist and are not necessarily mutually-exclusive. Scientists who think that science somehow answers all the questions about life and its purpose are just as ignorant as the most instranigent creationist.

The article I linked to does nothing of the sort. You're spouting off a bunch of BS.

http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/0102-97/Article3.html