KaskadskyjKozak

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

Those are essentially entity references to unicode characters - similar to HTML markup ">" to represent a ">" character

Yeah, look what happens when you try and post in cyrillic: Вот и что-то написано по-русски I used the Windows 1251 encoding...

Esli tak, togda podskazhi mne pozhalujste: pochemu komunisty eshche v sili v Kitayu? I kogda ikh sistema raspadetsya? Mne kazhetsya, chto svitlo na konce togo zhe tunnelya eshche ne vidno...

I'm no liberal, but I have to agree with you on NASCAR... as for beer, the only domestics I like are Microbrews.

That is a great little qualifyer. A chto novoye? Vot i istoriya Rosii i russkikh lyudej (da sosyedov yikh tozhe), nesmotrya na politicheskuyu sistemu, chas.

It was sustainable at the expense of its people. The return of a hard-liner, who clamped down on them could have kept things going. And you are how old? What did you SEE? Give me a break. If you "saw" things going down in 1989-1991 that does not cut it. We are talking about the world as it WOULD have been if Reagan had NOT been president. You need to go back to 1980 for that. It is intellectually dishonest to look at the Soviet Economy in the late 80's and state that Reagan did not have a significant impact on said economy and that it would have collapsed on its own. Reagan's policies were in play for years affecting the economy by this time and the two can not be separated. You need to go back to the state of the Soviet Economy under the Carter administration. Russia has never had a "healthy" system. Ever. What I expected for the Soviets, given free reign to do as they pleased under a non-confrontation Chamberlain-esque diplomacy, was more misery and suffering for Eastern Europe and the Soviet peoples at any cost necessary to keep the sovyetskaya nomenklatura fat and rich.

Nothing was in the cards. You can not possibly know how things would have turned out with a continuation of detante. Slashing of the military budget (say, under a 2nd Carter administration), and retreating from confrontation with Soviet-led international communism would have significantly reduced internal political and economic pressures within the Soviet Union to an extent that could have made their system sustainable. And the cost would have been how many more years of slavery for the peoples of Eastern Europe, the Baltics, Ukraine, and the Central Asian countries?

The policies of the Reagan administration forced the Soviet Union into a political and economic collapse. Had his predecessors' policy of detante continued, there is no guarantee that the collapse would have occurred on the same time frame - if ever. The Soviet Union had weaknesses which were exploited to our advantage at the right time. Gorbachev wanted to fine-tune the communist economy and hold the Soviet Union together (including the Baltics). He is to be credited for trying to reform his country on the one hand and for not taking a hard line when his empire began to crumble.

What a crock. I just love this type of revisionism: you disagreed with Reagan's policies - which history has proven to have been correct. So, you must attempt to show that he had nothing to do with his successes (or deny they were successes to begin with), rather than admit you were mistaken - all in order to maintain your world view. BTW, you must be talking to a whole different set of "Russians" than I do. Or perhaps something is "lost in translation"...

I'm a lot more worried about manipulation of vote tallies on the back-end than some malicious programming on the UI. Even barring intentional fraud, there are a multiltude of issues including scalability, data integrity, network connectivity, and software defects (bugs).

And your point is?

A bottle of Nightrain is better...

what's lacking are the synapses...

maybe if you had the IQ of a houseplant, you could learn it...

ty s RuMR-om iz odnogo polya yagody: nasladites' drug s drugom, sosunki!

keep spraying with your insipid postings - you might drive me to it.

I'd rather drown in a bucket of snot.

By your avatar/image one can ASSume that you like to take it in the butt regularly...