CDarwin

Has anyone expressed that opinion? Continuing a dynasty (*cough*Bush*cough*) is just as stupid a reason for electing a public official as our hopelessly inaccurate sense of their "character."

I meant 535, sorry. I was counting them among the total Congress for effect.

It's just a personal opinion, but I don't think that that's a very good way to select political leaders. We can't know Hillary, we can only know what pundits on both sides paint her as. We have no real way of judging if we'd trust her to look after our kids. It's just an emotional response built up by the media. Parties and their platforms are just ways to get elected. It's the issues that matter. If Rudy wants to call him self Republican because he's 'tough on terror' but still supports moderate social stances, I'll still support him on his social stances. The same with Clinton.

My response to Geoguy: Mneh *sticks tongue out* Or I could whip out the ultimate debate ender and point out that at least one in ten Tennesseans are probably personally connected to someone fighting in Iraq, so they'd pretty sure be able to point it out on a map. The statement is too stupid to have been meant seriously anyway. We may not be as highbrow down here as folks from the great metropolitan city of Edmonton, but we've had elec-tri-city out in these parts for at least 10 years, and TV's for almost as long. We've all seen the news and the little Iraq outlines that they always put up whenever they do an Iraq story.

I'll take a crack. Not that this is radically different than what everyone else has been saying. It really depends on what you look at whether Hillary is 'liberal.' If you look at her healthcare policies from the 90's (in the context of the 90's) you'd think she was a raving Troskyist. If you look at some of her foreign policy statements, though, she's a neocon. To war-weary Democrats, those foreign policy statements might be enough to brand Clinton 'moderate.' To Republicans and the general public her domestic policy may seem more pertinent, therefore she seems more 'liberal.' Of course media bias has a whole lot to do with what gets focused on by different groups of people. On a side note: the fact that Hillary told Newsweek that she's willing to work with James Inhofe on environmental policy worries me a bit. That's part of her 'moderate' credentials, I suppose. Well you're a cynical fellow.

In the Russian federal system regions are autonomous. You could call them 'nations.' It's also on the same day as a national holiday, so it has that national proportion. In other words: "shush". Now that's not fornication.

Well I didn't go to the survey... I wouldn't want to take up bandwidth in vain.

Does no one remember the Czar bomb? The Russian nuclear bomb so ridiculously impractical that it couldn't even be tested at full capacity without dropping fallout all over the world? Or the Kirov class battlecruisers, or the Typhoon submarines, or... need I go on?

... in the Ulyanovsk region of Russia. It's a measure to try to curb the population spiral. This just struck me as interesting. It's a novel idea. The euphemisms they use are rather amusing too. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6990802.stm

There was a Nova on PBS about that last night.

These days? As opposed to when?

It doesn't matter who neoconservatives are under. They don't quote the Bible. That's not what neoconservativism is.

I've laid this out before and I will again because people seem to get hung up on 'randomness.' Evolution occurs in two stages: The first the origin of variation. That's mostly random. The second is the elimination of that variation. Sometimes that too is due to random events (like rock slides killing gazelle who just happened to be walking near by), but often it's non-random selection. So evolution has both 'random' and 'non-random' components.

I would assume as much.

Woah, woah, woah. Drop the J bomb will you.

You know, it's really a testament to our maturity and self-restraint that no one has yet pointed out how funny a name "Glidersleeve" is. *Giggle, Giggle* Glidersleeve.

I don't quite remember on the first count, and on the second, I look at them and compare them and relish their presence. I have 3 vervet monkeys, 7 minks, and a cat. You had me up until 'girlfriend.' Completely lost all understanding with you then.

Not much since I get the lottery scholarship and my mother's a teacher and Sevier County pays part of it. I'm a senior at Seymour High School.

Well aren't you two just so special. I know the difference between an adapoid and an omomyoid. *sulks* I'm taking college classes now too, actually, but they're just dual enrollment at the local community college. Nothing "advanced."

I don't know what he's talking about either.

Ooh, ooh, forgot about Lysenko too.

Physicists... pfft.

I don't think I have to answer that question. EDIT: Rutherford was a prat.

I know. This what happens when you give a lot of opinionated people a topic.

I've known a bunch of Mexicans and none of them were very smart. I wouldn't wonder at the difference between "She's pretty short for a person from South Carolina" and "She's pretty short for a black person" either. You can't say that they're equivalent generalizations.