darth tater

That stuff is acetylene gas like is used in cutting torches and it makes a helluva bang even with nothing in front of it. My guess would be that it burns too fast to be useful as a propellant in a firearm.

I think there are creationists who believe in the theory of evolution. Isn't it a mistake to paint all creationists with the same brush?

As I understand evolution, it is a process whereby random genetic changes in an organism get a chance to demonstrate whether or not they (those changes) offer an advantage to the organism. If, for example, squirrels were once ground dwellers only, and by some genetic quirk, one of them had the ability to climb a tree, then it is possible that that ability figured in his survival to the point that he lived longer and was able to father--or mother--more offspring, many of whom had that same ability, and after a couple of hundred years, we find that the ground dwellers have all died out and the tree climbers are still doing well. Now, if that is true, can't we see evolution in action whenever a weed killer becomes ineffective? Or when a medicine becomes less effective to control an infection? Certainly we all know that microbes develop immunities to the chemicals that once controled them very nicely. Don't they develop this immunity because those few who were unaffected by the chemical in the first place were the only "breeding stock" left to propagate their kind? Isn't this a form of evolution?

For a good explaination of how we elect our president, try this web site..... http://www.fec.gov/pages/ecworks.htm

I think it is what we used to call "walking stick." http://www.ivyhall.district96.k12.il.us/4th/kkhp/1insects/walkingstick.html

Good.

Well then it seems that we don't have much to argue about--do we?

Again, you have pretty well explained why the current method of administering welfare is an utter failure. Children are left in homes that are detrimental to their well being and that literally gaurantee that they will follow the same lifestyle that their parents have, so the idea that "it is for the children" is just a way of pulling at someone's heartstrings. The fact of the matter is that if welfare worked, we would not have the generational welfare families that we have today. There are far too many families that have been on the rolls for 2,3 and even 4 generations. This is a national disgrace and it should be stopped before any more kids go down the same tube that the nanny state has condemned their parents to. By the way--a good life in America is to grow up learning how to take care of yourself and to do so and to take care of your children.

But what of the nightmare of leaving the child in a home where drugs and alcohol abuse is a daily event? Where the children are sometimes prostituted to provide money to sustain the habits of their parents? Certainly it is traumatic to take a child away from it's parents, but many times it is the lesser of the two traumas. Some of these parents do indeed love their children, but is that a sufficient reason to allow them to continue to conduct themselves in such a manner as to gaurantee that their children will grow into copies of themselves? With all the weaknesses and drug problems that their parents have? I think it far better for the children that they be seperated from this type of parent and thereby have a chance at a normal life.

My objection would be that if a parent is not fit to be a parent, pouring tax money into that household will not cause them to become good parents. Therefore, some system must be employed to seperate the bad parents from the unlucke parents. If a parent is temporarily short on funds or has been ill or other ligitimate reasons for not being able to perform their duty to their children, then perhaps there is a reason to advance some cash to help out, but if it is a chronic condition, then I think that children should be seperated from the parents and placed in homes that will provide better role models for them. Is no such homes are available, then they should be placed in institutions where their needs will be provided for and their education completed. But the parents should not be allowed to use their children as a bargaining pawn to get money from the government in order to buy drugs or alcohol for themselves, as now happens all too often.

Well, as I said before, I am not going to engage in a Socialism/Capitalism debate here--or elsewhere. I have already done that for so long that it has lost all appeal to me. One may as well debate the relitive merits of Catholicism versus protestantism for all the good that would be gained in changing anyone's mind. I would only point out that as a wealth producer, Capitalism is the hands down winner, as a study of the provided web site will attest.

I quite agree that there are many parents who are either unable or unwilling to be good parents and I support removing the child from that environment and placing it in a home where it's needs can be met.

How about Kryptonite (sp?) from Superman? Is there really such an element?

Once we determine the chemical reasons that a sexual attraction exists in the first place, it should be possible to locate the chemical difference between homo and heteral sexual people that influences their behaviour.

I think that to answer that question, one would have to determine what causes sexuality of either persuasion.

Coral, I don't know where you came up with the word "scum" to characterize homeless people, but it was not from me. The fact that you have included it in your post, I think, is indicative of an attempt to demonize me because I do not beleieve that the American tax payer, nor the homeless, for that matter are done justice by any automatic or knee jerk justification for being homeless and on welfare. I have said that I have contempt for many who are homeless, but again, "many" is the operative word. I also have contempt for "many" who have abortions and "many" who go to church and "many" who post in discussion forums, but that does not mean that I paint them all with the same brush, as I have attempted to point out "many" times.

That is fine for Autraliia, but as I have said repeatedly, I am talking about the USA. Because she buys the food with food stamps and the crack house will not take them (food stamps). Medicaid, subsidized rent, home nursing. Irrlelvant--I am talking about the US. But, Australia seems to have a better idea on how to handle that one. And neglience is not an abuse of the system? But in the generational welfare environment, getting on welfare is the first, and usually the last option. In working families, the girl is more apt to either get married or go to work herself and support her own child. It is criminal here too, but the numbers of people in this situation is such that it is largely unenforcable. Of couse they have moral flaws. That is a great contributor to their being on welfare in the first place. They refuse to work, they abuse drugs, they prostitute their own children--and themselves and they have no desire to change any of it. (now, before you respond, don't forget, I am referring to "many" and not "all.") Welfare supports these moral insufficiencies. That is precisely why it needs to be reduced. I know that from experience as an investor who actually takes the time to read my quarterly reports and who actually knows who in on the BOD of the companies in which I own shares. And "most" is your choice of words, I prefer "many." In those cases where I used the term "majority," I also said "perhaps." It is the obligation of the investor to know something about the comapny in which he invests. Do you agree to that?