ParanoiA

No, I don't get his mailings at all. And I don't get anything from the RNC or anything like that. I'm fairly reluctant to sign up for things like that. I don't know why. Old habit of rejecting solicitation I guess. Yeah, that kind of threw me for a loop when I heard him say he was pro-life. Now, his explanation was thoughtful and consistent, but certainly not typical. Another thing that has sat real well with me, is his insistance that a president not try to do too much, too far reaching. Keeping things managable sounds quite practical to me, and can help eleviate concerns with his views on things you don't agree with, like pro-life. If he isn't trying to rewrite the entire constitution in one term, then it may not matter so much that we disagree on a few important things. Oh, that was such an obvious cheap shot to get an easy applause. He had to stretch what Ron was saying to make that work. And anytime I see Giuliani start sporting his 9/11 experience I get sick to my stomach...

Legitimate comparison. Maybe it's more of a pacifism movement within the liberal think tank the way that the religious movement has infected the conservatives. Interesting post.

Has anyone seen or read much about Ron Paul? I've read some stuff on this website and watched the video and was quite impressed. But I don't know enough about him, so take my post with a grain of salt. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/ I'm really liking this guy, and I appreciate the way he explains himself and his views. Seems like he'd have the potential to really shake up the republican debates, but I haven't watched to see if that's what happens or not. Per that video it certainly looks like it. The only issue I have with him is it seems like he just wants to get out of Iraq without any sense of responsibility for the mess we leave. Here's the cool part...towards the end of that video (about 10 mins long I think), he gets called out about his comments concerning 9/11 - that our policies contributed to the hatred that drove that act. Take note on how all of the conservatives are just fit to be tied and completely confused, befuddled, on how anything we have done could possibly contribute... That's our leadership folks. They can't fathom how we are responsible for how we behave around the world. Ron Paul is being portrayed as an extremist to local radio around here, and I just don't see anything extreme about the man - other than maybe extremely realistic. What a breath of fresh air... I think he comes from a very down to earth, non-political like attitude and approach. I'm not sure he belongs in the republican primary and I doubt he'll make it, but it would so awesome to have a straight talking, ethical person in office instead of all of the political drones with fake smiles and showmanship. I don't know that he's for real, but I'm willing to bet he is. Ok...you can beat me up about it now...

Well keep in mind what got me to this post. The point I've been failing to make is that Intelligent Design is a theory that challenges established science, whereas people who simply believe in god AND evolution are not challenging science. The latter is not an issue, it's simply representative that many people in our country simply believe in god and so therefore it would naturally follow that they would believe god caused evolution. The way Phil was interpreting that poll of 55% believing in ID or creationism, was assuming that 55% understands the difference between accepting that god may be responsible for the invention of evolution and its systems versus a total rehab of scientific theory and evidence for supernatural beliefs. To me, you have to fudge the numbers in order to show a majority of the country is made up of ID'ers...because it's not. And I share your distaste for labeling individuals, but not for ideologies. ID is not an individual. That's why I take issue with that 55%, because it's throwing people into a group disingenuously. No, just a large chunk of it because it rejects the notion of natural selection. Natural selection is not reasonable to ID. Maybe this whole debate should be reworded to make this more clear - that we are really debating about natural selection more than evolution. Either that, or I don't fully appreciate the magnitude of ID. I'm open for education here. Hey, I'm with you here. We may find out the hand of god actually interferes continuously. We may find that natural selection is completely guided by god and made to look as if it's not. We may even find out the spaghetti monster is actually the devil and he and god are at a tug of war that takes place in the process of evolution. I highly doubt it and have basically risked my infinite soul that god doesn't exist, but I can't prove it so... Same here. Until it's proven, it's just another religious story, belief, whatever. We don't teach supernatural beliefs, we teach proven theories.

I don't know about monolithic, but it's beyond simply believing god and evolution, both. They actually want to pretend that the supernatural should be considered scientific theory. Here's some key snipets in the first paragraph of the Wiki search on Intelligent Design. This basically debunks a large chunk of evolution, in their view anyway. I don't understand evolution enough to really grasp how far reaching that is, to the study, but it's certainly an extreme step beyond simply believing god "Got the ball rolling" and evolution is the result, because natural selection is key, and in jeopardy by ID, but not the masses.

Exactly. And I may be wrong here, but I think one has to go out of their way to include them in the ID camp in order to make this an issue. The number of true ID'ers, in my opinion anyway, is a comfortable minority that is only as big as it is for politics' sake. They only look bigger because of the folks that don't understand the true POV of ID'ism.

How is that a radical view? It's older than science. How could anyone believe in god and yet think evolution could have been possible without him/her? So, now we have people who believe in god, but he's not really necessary and has nothing to do with our existence?? The inventor is still a requirement for the process, so it would be impossible without him. Direct intervention? One would likely never know. Can you explain quantum propabilities? I know you can predict measurements, but you still can't predict where one particular photon will appear at a precise moment in time. They make no sense. Who decides an essentially random behavior? Could that be god's intervention? I'm not so sure you're any better than the creationists, because you demand to rule out god before science can prove otherwise. What kind of scientist demands the absence of a particular result without proving it? I'm sorry you don't believe in god, neither do I, but I can't trust someone who forces me in a box. The point I'm making, not very well I might add, is that most these people you're counting in polls and other such nonsense are just people who believe in god AND evolution - not one without the other. I challenge that 55% for the same grounds as Pangloss, only I emphasize there is more inaccuracy due to people who believe in both god and evolution - which I also believe is the majority of the general public. I see no issue with the creationists any more than I see an issue with the spaghetti monster theists.

That we're secretly impressed with him... Personally, I watch the show because he's funny and pushes people. They do a bang up job of portraying him as quick witted and quite intelligent - if he was a real person I wouldn't mind sitting around being ridiculed by him at all. It would be funny...at least for a little bit.

Anyone who believes in god would believe this. It would be silly for someone to believe in god, and NOT believe he has a hand in evolution. Most people believe in god. So what's the problem? This statement contradicts the next sentence... But you just said, it could be the case. How can you say "god could've created the universe to make such process possible" and still take issue with a divine spark? What do you think that is? God creating the universe to make such processes IS a divine spark. --------------------- The creationists movement is about an entire field of study that challenges and changes proven scientific theory, thus debunking evolution - it's pseudoscience. People who believe in god and evolution aren't challenging proven scientific theory at all - nothing - it's just adding one more sentence: "God had a hand in it somehow". That's not even in the same ballpark with this IDist / creationist movement. You're putting people who believe in god AND evolution into the IDist / creationist camp. That's illogical and disingenuous. If I believe in total unfettered capitalism but also believe that corporations should be regulated, does that make me communist?

Yes..by both White and black people. And you are letting yourself be offended. Many black men walk around with a chip on their shoulder, looking for racism and lack of fairness. They will find it. I can find hints of "long hair-ism" if I look for it. That doesn't mean it's a significant issue by any stretch. You can find anything if you look hard enough, but is it rational? I don't think so. And neither did you. Neither did I. If you want open the history books and start pointing fingers, then why stop at a few hundred years? Why is that a magic number? How about 1000 years? How about 5000 years? Every race on this planet has been enslaved and every race on this planet has driven slaves. Some more than others - some a whole hell of a lot more than others, but we can all point to history and trace current status to bad things that happened to us by other people. We don't do that however, because it's stupid. It's unproductive. It gives one side an excuse to fail and the other side a reason to hate. You like digging around your history and continuing the fight today? It's working out real well for the Israelis and palestinians isn't it? That's complete bullshit. Your bitterness is showing. Tell this to the poor disenfranchised white folk all over the country. You think they feel or realize this power or wealth you're talking about? Please. They don't recognize any power or wealth or any comradery at all with those who do. It's not white people with power versus black people with none - it's people with power versus people with none. There is a glimpse of truth, in that those who are empowered and wealthy aren't bothered by those of us who are not. And those of us who are not typically blame our problems on the wealthy. The rich hold us down..blah blah blah. This is age old human nature crap where we externalize our problems so we don't have to face the fact that we suck at making a living. All you've done is throw in a racial spin on an old excuse. No, "white" people are just as poor, divided and non-empowered as any other race, and yet we don't get bent out of shape over name calling. The reason black people do is because they can, and they feel like everyone is against them. And that's because they're taught that from their environment. Oh my god, I've heard this a million freaking times. This is just a "life isn't fair" plea. You know what Mike, I didn't get my american dream either. Who can I blame it on? I should be able to sit on my ass at home watching TV and my american dream come knocking at the door to get me. What happened to it? All lies, right? The american dream is alive and doing great. I'm sorry, it's not a "gaurantee", but there's 300 million other people in this country who are also pursuing the american dream. Just because you didn't succeed, doesn't mean there's no succeeding. Your attitude is more of a sore loser campaign. I don't agree. I think it's because as a people it serves your interests to remain hostile. To keep up the pressure and get maximum mileage out of people who didn't do anything to you. It's a tactical advantage, typical of humans. I would use it if I had it, but unfortunately I was born white. So, I'm automatically to blame for all of your problems and should pay dearly for it, AND everything I have "came easy" due to the secret "white understanding". And since black people don't have any special institutions just for them, like whites obviously do, it's doubly unfair...right?

Bio fuels just aren't very impressive. I remember watching something on discovery, where scientists were arguing that even if you turned every spare patch of land in the US into a corn field, you still wouldn't be able to power the nation. Can anyone elaborate on that? And then, I think it was KLB that brought up the point that food is a little more important and is only going to be more scarce as the human population increases, and isn't mixing our food and fuel like putting all of our "corn" in one basket? (ok that was a stupid joke...but..)

Well, since you put it that way, I agree even more. Not sure about the bio-fuels, but certainly the rest of them.

Ok, stupid questions follow... Do you mean 99.5 % of them were literate? Can someone really graduate from high school and not be able to read?

Two questions... 1) Does that 67% include all the various processing techniques? If so, that would imply that almost half, maybe a strong third, of the gasoline comes from other processes than distillation. So, are these other processes inefficient or GW offensive? 2) Any ideas on the amount of crude that's just wasted, and doesn't end up as a product of any kind?

Well wait a minute. According to that article you referenced, the carbon chains are already formed. The refining is "separating" the various carbon chains, since they all have different boiling pionts, through the distillaton column. "Cracking" and other forms of chemical processing is required to change other carbon chains into octane. Although I didn't see anything covering the efficiency, I'm sure it's not impressive. So, according to this, only 40% of crude is gasoline, which can be supplemented with chemical processing to crack or unify hydrocarbons into gasoline. That makes it sound like crude, itself, isn't necessarily wasted, particularly considering the long list of hydrocarbons that come from it. I'll bet you're onto something with the coal though. I could see heat, like you pointed out, being the offender of inefficiency in the refinery. I mean, the coal is being wasted, but in the form of heat energy. From what I'm reading anyway...

Also consider pressure from schools. It's not always that the parents don't know how to handle them, or aren't willing, but the schools don't know how to handle them. This is the problem we had with our oldest son. We can deal with his ADHD, my mom certainly did with me and they didn't have any drugs to help them - or at least not a fraction of the availability of today. But they took corporal punishment away from school administrators, so there is no controlling my son. If he decides to jump on desks and run his mouth when he shouldn't, they don't have any punishment that will work. Detention? He doesn't care - neither did I. Suspension? Big deal - thanks for the vacation. Punishment at home doesn't work either since he's always living in the moment - that moment being at school with all of his friends to egg him on. The only reason, and I mean the only reason I made it through school, was corporal punishment. That was the only motivator for me to try harder to control myself in school. Sorry, I don't mean to derail the thread. Just making the point that the school system has plenty to do with forcing parents' hands and medicating their kids. That was the recommendation we got - both from Oklahoma and Missouri school systems - and that's the only recommendation we've received.

Maybe we could use the tool of the right and just challenge everyone's patriotism when they insist on using fossil fuels and buying oil from countries that hate us. I mean, seriously. Irregardless of GW or what causes it, irregardless of peak oil, irregardless of any doomsday scenarios - we know for a fact that we're going to have to keep getting "bad guys" rich by buying their oil. We're going to have to war to keep it accessible. How patriotic can you be if you're willing to continuously drag your country along the bottom of the barrel just to keep status quo on oil and gas? Surely we love our country enough not to volunteer each other's children to go die for gasoline. Surely? As a side, I had no idea that coal was such an offender. I've read a bit of material on GW here lately, and I've never read that anywhere. Much thanks to SkepticLance for bringing that up - apologies if someone else did and I missed it.

I don't have one of those. I wouldn't recommend one anyway - you need several unless you don't care to be incrementally brainwashed. I get my news mainly from the net. But AP is everywhere. And hacks contribute news locally, nationally and internationally. And I think you all are being too dismissive. Half the threads in this forum could probably be written off with similar logic.

Sounds fair to me, realistically. But is it "classified" as a WMD? I ask, because legal ease matters here. Also, keep in mind my opinion on this has evolved somewhat since this thread was current.

Fascinating. My sister in law's son (Tye), I think he's 6 now, has been diagnosed autistic. Although, I've never heard anything clinical beyond that, so I have no idea of the kind of autism we're talking about. But he is a neat kid - although a terror at the same time. When we last when to visit, they put on Shrek on their big screen. He was standing in front of the TV, but facing us, acting out the movie - I was amazed because he mocked every little nuance. If Shrek's face twitched, his face twitched. His timing was incredible. He almost looked like a mirror image of whatever character he was playing, in terms of their movements and when they spoke and when they listened - all timed amazingly well - looking at us. Is this a typical thing? Does it shed any light as to what kind of autism he may have? His mother said he watched the movie several times, but I still don't see how someone could memorize so much, so perfectly - and this was a year ago so I'm thinking he was 5 then.

My post was not about me, you or directed to me or you or anyone else. You demonstrated your own psyche by over reacting to a post about a TV character. Your statements were assumptions. You assumed an intent based on one sentence. I pointed that back at you to make a point and you missed it. Typical of presumptuous intellectuals. You have inferred a negative from a positive. I say "X" is good, you infer that "Y" is therefore bad. That speaks more about you than anything else. I didn't say Phi and Ophi made great points, so that you could then infer that everyone else is "beneath them, and everyone in the room is beneath me" - that's an irrational stretch, and quite disturbing actually. By your logic, every compliment by anyone, is actually a loaded partition of those worthy and those not. And by that logic, I can't win - so I won't bother. No, I referred to their posts because they both made points that I agree with, immensely. Phi made the point that “jerk” is the eye of the beholder – pride vs. arrogance, or efficient communication due to lack of time. Ophi made the same point, whom also referenced Phi’s post, and I particularly liked his last paragraph. I saw no reason to retype and re-post what they already posted and stated much better than I could. So, I chose to “high five” them before I went off on my Dr. House analysis. You have misinterpreted by a country mile. And you never had a need to think otherwise. You opened this up as an excuse to attempt to dazzle others with your supposed insight – a tool of the arrogant. I had no interest in debating anyone – until now. I did not. I said "DR. HOUSE" - again...a TV character - needs us to be normal "sheeple" so that he can be contrary. If it clarifies a feeling you have had as well, then why give me slack over it? Makes no sense. You also have not taken notice that I analyzed a fictional character, rather than an actual person. I would think a psychologist, or someone pursuing a major in such, would notice that. Can you demonstrate your wit and insight and tell us why I chose a fictional character over an actual person? I wasn't clear enough in that statement. Let me explain. Some of the smart people I've met in my life seem to have this attitude where everyone is stupid to them. They shake their heads because someone can't do algebra. Or they scoff at someone who has a hard time understanding something. They carry themselves as if THEY are responsible for their intelligence. They are not. They are responsible for their knowledge, not the potential to gain it. So, my statement was directed at those who haven't considered that their intelligence is given - via genetics. In other words...there is no need to run around thinking you're better than everyone else because you're more intelligent - that was a gift you had no part in. It's what you do with it now, that counts. Shame should follow those who judge stupidity irreverant to that fact. Sorry I didn't explain myself very well. Does that clear things up a bit? No, I will not change my approach. You missed my point...again. Just like up above, it is illogical to infer a negative from a positive. When I say "She is pretty" - that does NOT mean "You are therefore ugly". Do you get that? You have done that quite shamelessly. Now the question is...will you learn from it? I shouldn't reply to this, but I don't like being misunderstood. Yes, of course I feel bad. Insecurity is not a shameful character flaw. She's had a rough life, many reasons to be the way she is, and she's an amazing person despite it all. Anyone who learns of her past is amazed she is as functional and "normal" as she is - I know I am everyday. But not recognizing insecurity when it flares up doesn't do anybody any favors. That's why I point it out, and we laugh about it. She does the same to me as I'm probably more insecure than her. Who said anything about your self esteem? Who exactly are you talking to here? Your conscience speaking again? Look, you wanted to take me to task on a post directed at no one other than a fictional TV character that you later admit you kind of agree with. I wish I could agree that you have no self esteem issues. Your arrogance seems a little contrived to me, certainly presumptuous without experience. Perhaps you should gain a little more knowledge and humility before you try reading people based on one post??

It shouldn't be illegal. It may be the ultimate stupid thing, but it could also be the ultimate gift to the gene pool. I prefer philosophical consistency to blind indoctrination of the law.

Actually, I just liked their posts - more logical and practical. Sounds more like the truth, to me. I saw no need to reference anyone else's because I have no desire to "debate" with anyone. Just wanted to say I liked their POV's. Actually, yours is good too, and it seems your conscience is giving you away here... And you're also doing what my wife does....if I say "that girl is pretty", then she says "Oh, and I'm not?". See the insecurity there? I didn't say everyone else in the thread is beneath me - believe me, they know better. I said I though Ophi and Phi made the best points - I still do. (psst..you do realize that statement puts me under as well right? of course you do...) I didn't say jerks are actors. I used the character Dr. House since, to me anyway, he's a good example of a universal jerk. I think most would agree he is a jerk of at least some degree. The OP refers to jerks open ended without any clear definition. I thought it would be fun. Gee was I wrong. Ok, cool. So that's your take on it. I think you're describing yourself here. I think I described you when I tore down Dr. House, and you've taken offense. Like I said, your conscience is speaking volumes here. Otherwise, why so upset? Yes, that's the really the whole childish point of my post. House is a jerk, so I thought it would be fun to tear him up in this thread that wasn't narrowed too much to begin with. Relax. Starbucks? Non self respecting things? Are you sure you read my post? Look, House is a TV character - not a real guy. And I think you're taking my post too far so that you can use your intellect to make believe I deserve a thrashing and commence. Who's the jerk here?

Uh oh...I guess that screws up my analogy doesn't it? No kidding. Same with grease and fat. It should be banned. Why should we accomodate people who feel it necessary to clog their arteries with grease and fat? Never mind the fact that their size and weight adds to the fuel and food burden of the country (all while a large portion of the world starves) - and they take up too much room on the bus. Nah, I prefer freedom - that includes allowing stupid people to be free to be stupid. I hate smoking, and really can't stand most smokers - but why must we judge each other's vices? I blame lack of critical thinking and intellectual laziness. No one is taught to understand, or empathize with other's life choices - unless it's about homosexuality. They teach tolerance towards race and gender - but then stop short of anything else.

\ This is true. You have to do it for yourself too, not anyone else. Hint: Don't make it a big deal. That was the secret for me anyway. When you go on and on about how miserable you feel, or constantly thinking about it and vocalizing how hard it all is - that just makes it more difficult. People moan and groan to make it easier to fail. They want to set themselves up for an easier slip and disappointment. This applies to many habits that require will to terminate. Just curious if anyone else has done this...but I actually picked out this one lady here at work. She's in her forties I think, but she looks like she's in her 60's. Leather face, reeking of smoke and ash, talks like a man and completely out of breathe just walking to and from the smoke hole - this is like maybe 50 feet or so. You get on the elevator with this woman and all you smell is nasty ash and all you hear is her trying to breathe - gargly and all. This woman is gross, period. And smoking has caused almost all of it. Her skin, voice, breathing (or lack thereof) - and I internally add depression, shame and hopelessness to her case. She looks freaking miserable. Anyway, I picked her out and see her everyday and I never, EVER want a cigarette again. She is my rock and she has no idea...