DrDNA

You are correct. That is what I am refering to. How is it better than nothing? In the end, what is (practically) accomplished? I'm serious in that I don't see ANY overall benefit (except tot he company).

I have no idea why you believe that.

It isn't? Exactly how does Al, Al's company or any such carbon credit scheme reduce pollution overall? Al (or anyone else) can pollute all he wants because he (they) gave his own (Al's) company a few bucks which is supposed to be used to plant a tree? I may not be smart enough to comprehend Al's point, but it looks like dog shite, smells like dog shite, and tastes like dog shite, so I certainly don't want to get any of it on my shoes.

I agree 110%, but I am saying conversely that just because they do have a chance is no reason not to vote for them etiher Especially these days when the races have been so close. I actively campaigned for Ross Perot and put up with the unelectable rhetoric nonsense the whole time. Then afterwards, the Bushites complained that we cost them the election. It was total bull. Perot actually carried our county. My comment about Thompson's and Romney's chances were in reference to them actually being in the race at the end. I don't think they will be there in Nov, but I could be wrong, and if they are there, I would never say not to vote for them because they are "unelectable". That is a lie perpitrated by the mainstream.

Fred, The Cars - Yeech. Awful. Killing Joke - who? Brian Eno- who? Iggy Pop - with the Stooges. Awesome. Can't believe he is still alive. Looked to be at death's door 25 years ago (and still does) Supertramp - marvelous. Actually the 70s. Elton John - great in the 70s but was done by the 80s. was Mr/Ms pop by then and too into himself to make good music anymore. Steve Winwood - in the 60s and 70s with other groups - yes. but by himself yeech Joe Jackson - ok Simply Red - rather listen to a cat being tortured ecoli, Genesis- absolutely, but Phil Collins by himself? YEECH. Peter Gabriel on the other hand was a genius (my op), but actually left Geneis by the mid 70s.

Well, I don't think that either of them have much of a chance. But I meant, 'what?', why would you feel dirty voting for someone just because they have a chance? If they have a chance, why should that make them automatically illegit? Unfortunately, most people that I have voted for were classified by the mainstream as "never had a chance", but I would love to vote for someone that actually has a chance. Hell will probably freeze over first, but it would be nice..........

I'm not so upset about this that I'm contemplating flinging myself from a bridge or anything, but I must say that the committee's decision regarding this years Nobel Peace Prize is a disappointment. The Academy award was baffeling, and I laughed out loud when I heard it. But so what, its Hollywood...... But the Nobel Peace Prize...?? Give me a break. I don't get it. What part of the carbon tax credits is positive environmental work? The part about we can afford to pollute and abuse the environment/natural resources, so we can and will.......so here's a few bucks (to our own company) to alleviate our consicience. Now, let's leave our 50,000 sq ft mansion, drive to the private jet in the suburban, spew an amount of global warming gases similar to used by a fully loaded passanger jet as we fly across the country to give a self serving talk about global warming. I'm all for saving the planet, but come on. If it looks like a scam, walks like a scam, and quacks like a scam, it's probably a scam.

LOL. Yeah, I felt a little uneasy writting that here too, but I' confident that what I wrote was fact-based (age, definition, Christians believe...., etc).

iNow, Let me first say that I'm not trying to convince you of anything; just to clarify. But Faith is, by definition, accepting without proof. From Webster's 1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith> "Weak minds"? How do you come to this conclusion? Many of the greatest minds in history have believed in God. Including Einstein. I assume that you are refering to the New Testament. The Old Testament is almost twice as old. It is based in large part on the Hebrew Bible and was written from about the 15th century BC to the 4th century BC. We do not believe that the Bible was "written by humans", but by the Holy Spirit. Do random events sufficiently explain it for you?

What??

No matter how much sense your argument makes, I will not eat a 3 year old child. I plead with you not to eat children either. Now, pass the bacon please..........

Please explain.

Any idea how this effects the number of collisions between motor vehicles and moose? I know that it was Wyoming where the automobile density is probably quite low, but I suspect that we might expect similar behaviour in slightly more populated/traveled areas.

I watched the Rep debates the other night on TV and finally realized that Paul is in this in much the same way Ross Perot was in it. He appears (to me) to be shaking the tree with no real desire to actually win a nomination or the eventual race. He (and we) will win in the sense that he should continue to cause some awakening to his quite valid pet issues and/or a politcal shift, but, sadly, that may be it.

Its not a spine. Its a notochord and hold your breath waiting for it to evolve. Oh my. Trust big brother that much do we? What tolitarian, fascist, regime are are your friends fighting for over there anyway? I was under the impression that you were refering to the US Armed Forces.

The bookies appear to have Al Gore in the lead with 5/2 odds : Irena Sendler—9/2 Martti Ahtisaari—5/1 Al Gore—5/2 Sheila Watt-Cloutier—8/1 Stephen Lewis—10/1 Sri Sri Ravi Shankar—10/1 Shih Ming-Teh—10/1 Mahathir Mohamad—14/1 Lidia Yusupova—14/1 Thich Quang Do—14/1 Rajendra Pachauri—18/1 The Rotary Foundation—18/1 Ban Ki-Moon—25/1 Bertie Ahern—80/1 Condoleezza Rice—100/1 Bob Geldof—25/1 Bono—25/1 Tony Blair—100/1 Rush Limbaugh—100/1 Gao Zhisheng—25/1 Angela Merkel—30/1 President George Bush—100/1 Ales Bialatski—25/1 Muhammad Ali/Peter Georgi—40/1 Evo Morales—40/1 Oprah Winfrey—50/1 Sail Training International—50/1 http://www.slate.com/id/2175564/nav/tap1/

""Former Columbia University Professor Robert O. Paxton has written that: Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." Paxton further defines fascism's essence as: ...1.a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination." "".........the state as an organic entity in a positive light rather than as an institution designed to protect individual rights, or as one that should be held in check. Fascism universally dismissed the Marxist concept of "class struggle", replacing it instead with the concept of "class collaboration". Fascists embraced nationalism and mysticism, advancing ideals of strength and power as means of legitimacy. These ideas are in direct opposition to the liberal ideals of humanism and rationalism characteristic of the Age of Enlightenment. Fascism is also typified by totalitarian attempts to impose state control over all aspects of life: political, social, cultural, and economic, by way of a strong, single-party government for enacting laws and a strong, sometimes brutal militia or police force for enforcing them. Fascism exalts the nation, state, or group of people as superior to the individuals composing it. Fascism uses explicit populist rhetoric; calls for a heroic mass effort to restore past greatness; and demands loyalty to a single leader, leading to a cult of personality and unquestioned obedience to orders (Führerprinzip). Fascism is also considered to be a form of collectivism.""" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Do you have a good reference? I would like to know more.

The Patriot Act is a prime example.

Yes. And because you stated that and this. ""Are you completely stupid? Pigs have been found to have the same level of intelligence as a 3 year old child.They can even play video games. So its alright to kill a pig but not a 3 year old child?"" And anyone that might consider a pig's interest anywhere near the level of a 3 year old child's has no business being in a resposible position for that child's welfare. Pigs do not have the same rights as we do. They have the right to live as pain free and stress free an existence as possible on a farm, to die as painless a death as possible and with as much dignity as possible, to be processed, cooked and consumed as food on my plate, chewed and digested, broken down and converted into glucose to give me energy. That is the best life a pig can hope for.

Fred, I've read what you posted 5 times now and I'm still laughing......Elgor...ROFL

kb = kilo bases bp = base pairs (in double stranded DNA) When was the last time that you heard an important scientific discovery announced in a news conference? Well, he could have just taken some existing chromosomes and/or plasmids then cleaved out what he didn't want with nucleases and ligated them together. If that is what did, wouldn't it be a big disappointment? Any claims about making it from "chemicals in the lab" would certainly be stretching it. I suspect though that, with an automated DNA synthesizer, he synthesized fragments of a couple or a few hundred bases and then ligated these together. The "chemicals in the lab" would mostly consist of phophoramidites and enzymes; which are common in DNA synthesis and molec bio labs, but not what comes immediately to mind for most people. I think that would still be a disappointment because it is nothing but scale up of existing, done to death protocols.......on par with building the biggest brick wall in the world because you can afford more bricks than anyone else. Plus, if the stories I've read are accurate, he pared down known genes, so he didn't design anything denovo.

""THE environmental campaigner Al Gore is being tipped as a favourite to win the Nobel peace prize in Oslo this Friday in a controversial move that could place saving the planet above saving people from war and conflict. Gore, a former American vice-president and failed presidential candidate, has reinvented himself as the “Goracle” with a rock star following after presenting last year’s Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, about the dangers of climate change. He was nominated for the Nobel prize jointly with Sheila Watt-Cloutier, a Canadian Inuit activist who has campaigned about the effect of climate change on Arctic peoples. " .. ......... Some commentators in America, including the British writer Christopher Hitchens, believe he could use a Nobel win to challenge Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. “Can he stand to watch another Clinton walk away with a nomination that could have been, or could still be, his?” Hitchens asked. Close supporters believe the answer is yes. Gore appears to have concluded that the Democrats are satisfied with their candidates. "" http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article2603982.ece The obvious question is, does he deserve a Nobel Peace Prize?

Wow. Michigan and Florida are considered to be "key states". This has got to have more impact than if something similar happened in for example Montana or RI....no one might notice then. But Michigan and Florida? I wonder what they are going to do at the convention; not call on the great states of Michigan and Florida? I have always been under the impression that, since they are not "real" elections, primaries are not restricted by ANY law, regulation or governing body.....and why some states have open primaries and some have closed primaries. As far as chosing the delegates goes, I believe that there is no regulated system in place...part of the 2 party system. Of course I could be mistaken. Please enlighten me if I am.

Healthcare good Bush bad