zapatos

I don't think Trump has any control over Republicans. They are acting in their own best interest, and their own best interest says 'don't let a Republican President be impeached'.

Sorry, but doesn't this seriously undermine what control?

Thus far, I don't believe so. Donald seems more inept and sleazy than criminal. Unless he commits an overt criminal act I don't believe a Republican controlled House and Senate will agree to any sanctions for Trump.

Thanks for the link! I watched for a while and wish I didn't have to do actual work today. Fascinating stuff. My quick impression is that Comey is professional and truthful. I also get the feeling that Trump's lack of a basic understanding of how government works is a cornerstone of his ongoing problems. He seems to think being elected President means he gets to 'manage' the US like he was able to manage his companies.

Where is this atheistic activism taking place? If it is on this site, then you may have a skewed view of how active atheists are. This is a discussion site, and this is what we do. If a theist talks about or defends religion they should expect to be challenged, just as someone who talks about or defends string theory should expect to be challenged. I cannot think of many times (or any times for that matter) that I or others I've observed have engaged with religious people on religious topics unless all parties were interested in discussing it. Edit: I don't often see atheists yelling at theists outside of churches, but I do see theists yelling at people outside abortion clinics. I think if theists left atheists alone, then atheists would return the favor. I don't feel the need to ban vegetarianism either, and I suspect nearly no one does. The problem arises when the vegetarians start telling us to not kill cattle. Those are the ones who draw the ire of the meat eaters (or atheists in the case where theists tell us to not have abortions).

Citation please.

And that's why it is a social construction. Some people base their definition of race on skin color, when you could just have easily based it on looks, height, hair color, etc. No one is denying there are biological differences, just that there is no meaningful, consistent, and widely accepted definition of what constitutes a given race.

Maybe he exists but has no interest in getting involved with our issues.

So only the same small set of genes in any person could potentially be Neanderthal? We don't find Neanderthal genes in large stretches of human DNA? Assuming I understood that correctly, why do you think that is? Why aren't Neanderthal genes found throughout our genome, but instead found only in a small subset?

Why is it likely they are the same genes?

Thanks. It's been one of those days...

This is like watching someone at a tennis match trying to understand how many wickets were lost during the last field goal attempt.

Given that you believe in the eventual demise of humanity, you may want to embrace religion and any other institution that gives hope. If we must crash and burn, let's at least go down fighting.

The concept of 'race' does exist, but it means different things to different people at different times. Hence, it is a social construct, rather than a scientific classification. I remember as a child my father explaining the 'one drop rule' to me.

Aren't you the one who opened a thread on whether or not high school science was of any use?

Well, it can keep you from treading on thin ice, or mixing bleach and ammonia while cleaning the house.

I had twelve years of Christian schooling. The Bible was my spiritual text for longer than you've been alive. You are not the definitive authority on me, either.

I doubt that you are the definitive authority on the the meaning of the Bible. To suggest that you can know the 'correct' way to interpret a specific passage in the Bible is astounding. Your arrogance knows no bounds.

Your argument is as weak as the soup you would get from boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death.

There is too much chlorine in your gene pool.

I'm confused. In your last post your question was "But isn't it worth it?". Why is that no longer pertinent?

Of course you are. Read again what you wrote. Seriously? That's what you got out what I posted? Nice straw man. Perhaps you should read again what I wrote. YOU are the one who brought up what Russia did, remember? "So, exactly what was it Russia was supposed to have done during the election other than publish information?"

It always amazes me that people use that argument as justification when someone has wronged us. I remember hearing it in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack, as if that justified the deaths of innocent people. We should fight against all improper behavior no matter who commits it, and not accept it as 'the way it is'.

I switched to a Mac about five years ago and have had zero hardware or malware issues in that time. I'm a convert.

Frankly I'm surprised you are not aware of this. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/us/obama-russia-election-hack.html?rref=collection%2Fnewseventcollection%2Frussian-election-hacking&action=click&contentCollection=politics&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=4&pgtype=collection&_r=0