KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Subaru makes the Legacy, Outback and Baja in Lafayette, IN I'm sure the Toyota Tacoma's on your hit list - Fremont, Ca. How about the BMW X5 - Spartanburg, SC. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 It was intended a a humorous play on words, numbnuts. I always find it difficult to distinguish hyperbole from stupidity when dealing with the right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 1) A higher proportion of profits still goes oversees. Is your Dodge truck american? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 American goods are anti-American! Outsourcing is where its at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 If you'd had a Subaru you could have driven it 30 000 miles a year and still owned it for 11 years Shitty Ford technology again! 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Is your Dodge truck american? What Dodge truck? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camilo Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 I want to hear what everyone's thoughts are comparing the "danger" of teaching creationism as a parallel topic to evoloution and abstinence-only sex ed. I think the latter is much dangerous. Take Texas: Top 5 in the U.S. in teen pregnancies and they're only approving textbooks that at most make a passing reference to safe sex. Those folks don't have to ever worry about committing the sin of sodomy because they've got their heads so far up their asses nothing else can ever get in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Little Suzy doesn't only have to deal with Satanist evolution in the classroom but gay dentists too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Good god. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 I want to hear what everyone's thoughts are comparing the "danger" of teaching creationism as a parallel topic to evoloution and abstinence-only sex ed. I think the latter is much dangerous. Take Texas: Top 5 in the U.S. in teen pregnancies and they're only approving textbooks that at most make a passing reference to safe sex. Those folks don't have to ever worry about committing the sin of sodomy because they've got their heads so far up their asses nothing else can ever get in. Can you cite any studies that demonstrate a primary focus on abstinance-only is harmful? Or just anecdote put forth by those with an agenda like yours? I think telling minors that the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and STD's is to abstain from sex is a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Have you noticed, people are still having sex. Wasn't there a song about this back in the 90s? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Little Suzy doesn't only have to deal with Satanist evolution in the classroom but gay dentists too! Dru, your link is amusing, but why would a public school teacher have any more right to present a gay lifestyle than she would creationism? This is where your side runs into a wall. The same liberals who scream bloody murder at the thought of creationism being taught in schools are the same ones who want to push homosexual doctrine on 3rd graders and cite fictitious statistics about 10% of the population being gay. Maybe if you kept your agenda out of public schools, the religious right would be more inclined to moderate their own as it relates to education. Maybe they would even stop pulling their kids out of public schools! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Little Suzy doesn't only have to deal with Satanist evolution in the classroom but gay dentists too! Dru, your link is amusing, but why would a public school teacher have any more right to present a gay lifestyle than she would creationism? This is where your side runs into a wall. The same liberals who scream bloody murder at the thought of creationism being taught in schools are the same ones who want to push homosexual doctrine on 3rd graders and cite fictitious statistics about 10% of the population being gay. Maybe if you kept your agenda out of public schools, the religious right would be more inclined to moderate their own as it relates to education. Maybe they would even stop pulling their kids out of public schools! Sooo.... if Dru keeps his agenda out of public schools then the right wing freaks will keep their claws out too? Done deal. Dru! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camilo Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Can you cite any studies that demonstrate a primary focus on abstinance-only is harmful? Or just anecdote put forth by those with an agenda like yours? I think telling minors that the only sure way to avoid pregnancy and STD's is to abstain from sex is a good thing. I didn't know I had an agenda . I agree that abstinence should be a part of sex ed, because it really is the safest thing. I think that doing this without serious discussion about birth control and disease prevention is about as irresponsible as you can get. Teaching abstinence with little mention of prevention is not teaching, it's more like preaching to me. Sorry, but I don't feel like looking for any studies on that. Maybe tomorrow. I'm tired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Little Suzy doesn't only have to deal with Satanist evolution in the classroom but gay dentists too! Dru, your link is amusing, but why would a public school teacher have any more right to present a gay lifestyle than she would creationism? This is where your side runs into a wall. The same liberals who scream bloody murder at the thought of creationism being taught in schools are the same ones who want to push homosexual doctrine on 3rd graders and cite fictitious statistics about 10% of the population being gay. Maybe if you kept your agenda out of public schools, the religious right would be more inclined to moderate their own as it relates to education. Maybe they would even stop pulling their kids out of public schools! Sooo.... if Dru keeps his agenda out of public schools then the right wing freaks will keep their claws out too? Done deal. Dru! Works for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 I want to hear what everyone's thoughts are comparing the "danger" of teaching creationism as a parallel topic to evoloution and abstinence-only sex ed. I think the latter is much dangerous. Take Texas: Top 5 in the U.S. in teen pregnancies and they're only approving textbooks that at most make a passing reference to safe sex. Those folks don't have to ever worry about committing the sin of sodomy because they've got their heads so far up their asses nothing else can ever get in. Actually, if schools taught sodomy-only (heterosexual, of course) sex-ed, the pregnancy rate would rapidly fall to....zero! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 My agenda? You mean like my master plan for world domination? Damn right 'm keeping it out of a classroom. Frickin' kids wouldn't understand how to hook up a laser beam to a shark if ya drew'm a diagram! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 My children will train in military-style camps, practice martial arts, march at night in the rain, learn purse-seine tactics. They will never submit to your evil shark masters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dru Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Your children are too busy trying to emulate Ronald Hamburger sweet ninja site. My evil plan has succeeded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlpineK Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Every once in a while you pull your head out of your ass and say something intellegent Fairweather. I think that evolution is what you want to teach in a science class in school...because it's a science class. This doesn't mean that you can't also believe that god created the universe/earth/us. Unfortunatly there are so many vocal freaky christians out there who want to push their literal interpretation of as science. In the long run it will hurt us as a country. Science literacy is poor enough right now, and our economy and jobs depend more and more on having an educated population. You can't have an educated population if people don't know the difference between science and religious belief. Now as for this car thing. I just bought a chevy with a duramax diesel engine. The engine is the same as the diesel engine in my Isuzu FRR. Nowadays the auto industry is more and more a trans national business. It's kind of silly to argue the jap vs american car thing anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott_harpell Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 Every once in a while you pull your head out of your ass and say something intellegent Fairweather. I think that evolution is what you want to teach in a science class in school...because it's a science class. This doesn't mean that you can't also believe that god created the universe/earth/us. Unfortunatly there are so many vocal freaky christians out there who want to push their literal interpretation of as science. In the long run it will hurt us as a country. Science literacy is poor enough right now, and our economy and jobs depend more and more on having an educated population. You can't have an educated population if people don't know the difference between science and religious belief. Now as for this car thing. I just bought a chevy with a duramax diesel engine. The engine is the same as the diesel engine in my Isuzu FRR. Nowadays the auto industry is more and more a trans national business. It's kind of silly to argue the jap vs american car thing anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 I think that evolution is what you want to teach in a science class in school...because it's a science class. This doesn't mean that you can't also believe that god created the universe/earth/us. Unfortunatly there are so many vocal freaky christians out there who want to push their literal interpretation of as science. In the long run it will hurt us as a country. Science literacy is poor enough right now, and our economy and jobs depend more and more on having an educated population. You can't have an educated population if people don't know the difference between science and religious belief. 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... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bDubyaH Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 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... kask, i'm rather surprised. while evolution may be a small part of the science curriculum, it is of vast importance and underlies damn near everything taught in a secondary biology class. particularly AP, which usually tend towards cellular function and anatomy (i may be wrong it has been quite a while). i imagine genetics comes in to play even more these days than back in my day, so how does one go about explainng that we have essentially the same make-up as every other mammal particularly at the earliest (fetal) developmental stages. for that matter why go cut up cats and pigs to learn about anatomy...how is it related to us. in short i think that it is of huge importance to present the underlying theory, particularly to people who may not go on to college. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KaskadskyjKozak Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 kask, i'm rather surprised. while evolution may be a small part of the science curriculum, it is of vast importance and underlies damn near everything taught in a secondary biology class. particularly AP, which usually tend towards cellular function and anatomy (i may be wrong it has been quite a while). i imagine genetics comes in to play even more these days than back in my day, so how does one go about explainng that we have essentially the same make-up as every other mammal particularly at the earliest (fetal) developmental stages. for that matter why go cut up cats and pigs to learn about anatomy...how is it related to us. in short i think that it is of huge importance to present the underlying theory, particularly to people who may not go on to college. 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bDubyaH Posted December 1, 2004 Share Posted December 1, 2004 I'm not defending "creationism" here - but sometimes it is useful to find a common ground. i didn't get the vibe that you were defending it, and i am all for common ground. my beef is that the creationist/id club isn't using standardized tactics (peer-reviewed science) to get their message in schools. having spent the last decade training to be a scientist this really raises my hackles. i don't know if science has just done a really poor job educating the public on how these methods work or whether the public is just swayed by anything that sounds remotely scientific. but then i live in a state where our congressman is of the opinion that global warming is not influencing the arctic...this after he was given a peer-reviewed report from top arctic climatologists. so what do i know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.