alibabba

No, it used to be "one nation indivisable" and then the words "under God" were added to make "one nation, under God, indivisable,........"

The law forbids anyone from forcing a student to recite the pledge of allegience. As to a moment of silence, I have never heard of a law that requires that. Cite?

BULLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLSHIT !!! Sorry old man, but comming from you, this is just tooooooooooo much.

No, recitation of the pledge in any form is voluntary. Ain't we tho...... And neither do we, but we can if we want to.....

Actually, "indivisable" is still there, "under God" was added.

Is it not true that this ruling applies only to the schools in Judge Karlton's district? And then, only if the judge orders those schools to cease reciting the pledge? Which, he has not as yet, done? And if this ruling is appealed, that there is a significent chance that he will be overruled? And if not, that the SCOTUS will hear the case and that he will be overruled there? I think it is premature to pronounce the pledge as "unconstitutional" based on one judges rulling.....don't you?

I too am anxious to see what comes to light about the handling of this catastrophe. I suspect that it will be found that the system had some snags in it that need to be ironed out. It has recently been altered after the event of 9/11. However, it is clear that the local and the State governments of N.O. and of Louisiana fell flat on their faces on this one. They had primary responsibility for looking after the safety of the citizens who were going to be involved in this storm and, since they had several days warning, there is no reason that N.O. could not have been completely evacuated.

Yesterday evening, just at dusk, I was sitting on the front deck with my wife, when appeared before us, was what we at first took as a hummungbird. I thought it look a little strange, because the wingbeat was not as fast as that of a hummingbird and it didn't make any audible sound. When it hovered over one of the flowers, we got a good close look, as it was no more than 4 ft. away. The photo is from a web site that identifies it as the hornworm morphed into a moth. In all my considerable years, I have never seen such a thing. Are they that rare to Southern Michigan?

What would be the point of whacking this Chevez if we don't have someone lined up to take his place? And if we did, (have someone lined up to take his place) then why not just let HIM do it? (the linee,whack Chevez)

We can easily correct that. All we have to do is kill about 295,000,000 humans and let nature take over again. Does that appeal to you?

Oh, I didn't see your thread on it. I agree with your assessment on it though.

Now we have a group who would import lions and cheetas into the US to create "ecological diversity." How many of us think THAT is a good idea? The following is a cut and paste, as it was an article off AOL's welcome page: Group Wants to Bring African Animals to North America By JOSEPH B. VERRENGIA, AP DENVER (Aug. 17) - If a group of prominent ecologists have their way, lions and elephants could someday be roaming the Great Plains of North America. Scientists say African cheetahs could thrive on North American plains, where cheetahs roamed thousands of years ago. The idea of transplanting African wildlife to this continent is being greeted with gasps and groans from other scientists and conservationists who recall previous efforts to relocate foreign species halfway around the world, often with disastrous results. But the proposal's supporters say it could help save some species from extinction in Africa, where protection is spotty and habitats are vanishing. They say the relocated animals could also restore the biodiversity in North America to a condition closer to what it was before humans overran the landscape more than 10,000 years ago. Most modern African species never lived on the American prairie, the scientists acknowledge. But some of their biological cousins like mastodons, camels and saber-toothed cats, roamed for more than 1 million years alongside antelope and herds of bison until Ice Age glaciers retreated and humans started arriving. The rapid extinction of dozens of large mammal species in North America - perhaps due to a combination of climate change and overhunting - triggered a landslide of changes to the environmental landscape. Relocating large animals to vast ecological parks and private reserves would begin to repair the damage, proponents say, while offering new ecotourism opportunities to a withering region. The scientists' plan appears in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature. It is attracting interest from some influential circles, including media mogul Ted Turner, America's largest private landowner. He owns huge ranches in several states to support his commercial bison operation and personal conservation initiatives. But the plan is also generating criticism on both sides of the conservation debate. Media mogul Ted Turner is interested in the idea, but many scientists say it's misguided. "It is not restoration to introduce animals that were never here," said University of Washington anthropologist Donald K. Grayson. "Why introduce Old World camels and lions when there are North American species that could benefit from the same kind of effort?" Others wonder whether people would support African lions making a home on the range, given the opposition to the reintroduction of native wolves in the rural West. "Just when you think the world has gotten as weird as it can get, something like this comes along," said Steve Pilcher, executive vice president of the Montana Stockgrowers Association. "I wonder how many calves or lambs it would take to feed a family of lions for a month?" Pilcher mused. "We sort of know what it takes for wolves, but something tells me we would be in a whole new ball game." Some wildlife conservationists said the idea would further damage the prospects of both threatened species and Africa's hopes for sustainable economic development. "Such relocations would affect future tourism opportunities for Africa," said Elizabeth Wamba, the East Africa spokeswoman for the International Fund for Animal Welfare in Nairobi, Kenya. "The welfare of the animals would have been reduced by transporting and exposing them to different eco-climatic conditions." Critics also point to calamitous relocations of foreign species in Australia. Rabbits brought from Europe swarmed across parts of the Outback, and noxious cane toads brought from South America to control bugs in sugar cane fields killed native wildlife. The authors of the new plan say they are not discouraged. "We are not saying this is going to be easy," said Cornell University ecologist Josh Donlan, the lead author of the proposal. "There are huge and substantial risks and obstacles." The plan grew from a retreat at Turner's New Mexico ranch - a 155,000-acre property in the foothills of the Gila Mountains that contains a mix of ecosystems ranging from desert grasslands to pine forests. Ecologists are using the ranch to experiment with reintroducing the Bolson tortoise to the region. These 100-pound burrowers were once found across the Southwest, but now survive only in a corner of northern Mexico's Chihuahuan Desert. The scientists' discussion expanded to consider long-extinct Pleistocene species that have modern counterparts elsewhere in the world. For example, a larger American cheetah once stalked pronghorn on these lands, with both species evolving special features that enabled them to accelerate to 60 mph. Today, pronghorns rarely are chased, except by the occasional pickup truck. In Africa, modern cheetahs are being exterminated as vermin, with fewer than 2,000 remaining in some countries. Relocation could help both species retain important traits, the plan's proponents say. Other living species that are counterparts to Pleistocene-era animals in North America include wild horses and asses, Bactrian camels, elephants and lions. Donlan concedes that lions would be a tough sell to Americans. "Lions eat people," he said. "There has to be a pretty serious attitude shift on how you view predators." 08/17/05 13:44 EDT Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.

I did manage to point out that in this area, water can be found almost anywhere one drills, and that new home builders were so confident that water is avaliable that they go ahead and build the home first, then drill the well, and not the other way around. Also, that as the dowser walks about, suddenly the wires cross. Can we conclude that if one drilled a well 12 feet away--befor the wires crossed--that we would come up dry I inquired? "No, of course not" was the reply, so what is the significence of the wires crossing? "well we don't know, but it works" they said. I have got to find better companions for breakfast.

At breakfast the other morning, the subject of water dowsing came up. I was surprised to find that about 3/4 of the people present believed that it is possible to accurately locate water wells, sewer pipes, septic tanks and all manner of things buried in the ground, by the use of bent coat hangers. I just wondered if one or more of you folks could explain the scientific principals behind this phenomenon. Here is a sceptics report on it. http://skepdic.com/dowsing.html And oh, I almost forgot, about 1/2 of them believed that throw rugs always move towards the East. That is to say that a throw rug outside a doorway will creep towards the East when trod upon. Anyone ever hear of this?

Which, under similar circumstances, they would be happy to do?

It seems that the Brits were able to cut the cables that were snarled in the Russian sub's propeller and the crew was saved. Do we think that there will be and political gains or losses because of this rescue? In any event, it was a job well done, and I am sure that there are now at least 8 Russian seamen who will look kindly tyoward the Brits for the rest of their lives.

I have read most of the responses and can see both sides of the issue here. Certainly we don't want to condone the police shooting anyone anytime that they "think" that he poses an immediate danger to the public. The burden should be--would a reasonable person think so? Much like the standard for lethal force being permissable in a case of self defense. (in most of the US) On the other hand, it would be foolish not to recognize that we are currently involved in a somewhat tougher game here than it would be were we arresting burgulars, arsonists and even murderers. These guys are quite willing to die, right then and there, for their cause. Under those circumstances, the rules of engagement simply must be altered to fit the occasion. Judicial review is certainly called for, but it should be conducted with a thoughtful regard for what society is asking those officers to do.......

Why were the pictures removed?

Things like this happen. It happens here in the US and all over the world. Givin the circumstances in London recently, it is understandable. The question, at least in my mind is, it it excusable? Should the shooters be charged with anything?

By using a shotgun and then picking up the wad, there is no ballistic evidence to worry about. By using a saboted bullet as in the excellerator, one would, to be safe, need to locate and retreive the sabot. If one used a conventional pistol or rifle, then disposed of the weapon, there is nothing to match the ballistics to. Here, when I say dispose of, I don't mean to simply throw it away, I mean to melt it down with a cutting torch. Another method is to simple lap the barrel out with a fine valve grinding compound after the shooting, thereby changing the markings left by the tool marks inside the barrel.

I hear on the news that the guy who got shot in London the other day was not connected to terrorism in any way. It seems that the cops thought that since he ran from them and had on some loose clothing, that he was a suicide bomber, so they whacked him. Sorry about that--uh?