DrDNA

Wow. I didn't know that. Does anyone know the supposed logic behind this exemption? That seems to be soooooo wrong.

Amen. I surrender

I suggest you do some reading. Wolves are not domesticable. http://www.wolftrust.org.uk/petwolves.html Keeping wolves in captivity is cruel. I had a friend once with a hybrid wolfdog (50/50). That thing was crazy man. He thought it was cool at first, but it killed every goat, sheep, calf, and dog it sight. The neighbors got very angry. It was nice around people though.... It was always finding ways to escape and eventually did not return...much to relief of its owner.

I see. Paranoia, Darwin, You think that I am advocating that people make decisions of such magnitude based on anything other than the facts? LOL. Thanks buds. Cleavage and color of clothing? ROFL! Johnny, let's vote for Edwards because he has the nicest hair cut..ROFL!! I thought this was about something at least a little deeper than that....at least some perception of trust vs lack thereof, sincerity, truth vs lies, deciet or corruption...based on something(s) on some grander scale... I am VERY disappointed. BTW: Your should know that it is not nice to call people weasels. Not a good strategy to use when trying to prove any kind of point or state a case. Lose? LOL. I wasn't even aware that this was a contest. I thought it was an honest, simple discussion about possible reasons why some people think Hillary walks on water and some apparently detest her. Just because I honestly tried to explain why I personally feel the way I do about this candidate (which has nothing to do with cleavage, clothing, orientation, what some radio pundit said, etc... by the way....), doesn't mean I want to beat anyone at anything. **And if you would just look, the first responce to this thread was by me. In which I stated that most peoples' opinions of her come from media/pundits/etc... So come on. You think that I am not aware of the influence???? I just so happen to believe that what you are proposing would be great. I really do. I'd be cray not to agree with it. Not like it's novel and hasn't been proposed before (many many times). Except for the fact that in the real world peoples' opinions and beliefs tend to be based on things other than entirely objective criteria (not my novel invention either). I wish it weren't so, but it is. If it were so, this world would be a little closer to perfect than it is. And if you and I were actually able to put our blinders on and view each of the candidates in a completely objective manner (see Hillary as a person....LOL...sorry, Obama as colorless, etc), unfortunately, our votes would be drowned out by the millions are not completely objective. Plus, if you think that you are ENTIRELY objective, lacking in the effects of outside influence, well I could be wrong, but you might need to remove the log from your eye and take a long hard look at yourself. Again, I could be wrong and perhaps you are not influenced in any way by the environment. If I am wrong, I apologize, but I've only ever heard of one other person like that....... Back to the point: A nonobjective variable that will be used in this race that may be valid on some level(s): one example of why she is difficult for Average Joe to take, a very subjective thing that really makes me wonder about Hillary....how, after a decade and half in the national spotlight, plus years before that in a state mansion, a few years in the Senate....all that money spent on handlers.....does she still comes across to the Average Joe (and to me by the way) as so insincere and unprofessional. Almost like someone in a high school debate....I really want to know why. You got an answer for that? BTW: If your answer involves any hint of pundits or media...may the fleas of a thousand camels infest your arm pits.

Ah.......I see. And how do you propose to deal with a thing call the first amendment (free speech, press, etc..)? TVs, radios, internet, and newspapers would have to be banned and so that we only base our decisions on their records. And what about new candidates that have not held office before...How do you judge them? I don't necessarily disagree with your idealistic views, but the first A might be a barrier to pulling this off......... This has reminded me of when I was in my late teens to early 20s and firmly believed that we should give ALL of our money to our benevolent government, because they know how to spend it more wisely than we do and would provide us with everything we could possibly need......(true story). Unfortunately, a beast called reality beat the living heck out me...... Enjoy while you can. Peace.

So what are you planning to do? Ban all forms of media and pass a law that all candidates must be judged solely on their quantifiable records? As that guy on the Guiness beer commercial would say.... "Brilliant"

Uhmmmm....Well, I stated that the force of the impact would include the whole weight of his body (about 160 lbs). I didn't want to convert lbs, to kg to Newtons, etc....and everybody knows F = ma Man, you grade tough! Don't I get partial credit? Is this going to be on the test?

d = assuming that a 2 story building is about 20 ft or approx 6 meters tall. a = accel due to gravity = approx 10 m/s a =v/t; v= at; and d = 1/2 at^2 so t = (sq root of (2 x 6 meters)/10 m/s^2) the guy would fall for about 1.2 sec. v = 10 m/s^2 x 1.2 s that's about 12 meters/sec converting meters back to feet to miles...... I say that he would hit the ground at about 24 mph with the whole force of his body behind him......about 160 lbs on average. Probably didn't feel a thing.... But I haven't had general physics in a LONG LONG time so you might want to check my math........

This is quite interesting. If public face is a poor basis for decision making, by what means do you propose that the citizenry base their decisions regarding the casting of ballots? BTW: Record is part of that public face. I'm open to other suggestions and would prefer another way myself, but I just can't think of one.

"Snap emotional judgments"??? She has been in the national public eye for nearly a decade and a half! Re: "You've never had the opportunity to interview Hillary Clinton. All you have to go on is the face she puts out publicly and (more importantly) what the media tells you." Of course all I have to go on is the face she puts out publicly. Until she comes over to the house for tea, that will be all I have to go on.

You fail to miss the analogy. Let me rephrase. Say that you are interviewing candidates for an open position in your dept. A person comes through the door and they are very bright, driven, but you know for certain that they are insincere and they make your skin crawl severely on several levels. Would you hire them for a sensitive, VERY important position? Of course you would find any excuse not to hire them. Why, when someone honestly states this about Hillary, must they be subjected to ridicule and accused of being Rush Limbaugh's stupid robot? Call me stupid, a robot, whatever. It doesn't matter. I respect your opinion of Hillary and also of me. However, from where I sit, it appears to ME that YOU my friend are the one that has been buying someone else's (eg, party line or media's) bull. I am convinced that this country is in love with Camelot (if I may borrow that term for our fascination with almost roylaty). Jackie was our "queen"....walked on water because of it...and JFK junior our "prince". Ted Kennedy gets a free pass all the time because of it. No matter what he says or does, he gets a free pass (please don't get me started with Ted; that is a whole thread). Now Hillary walks on water for a large segment of the population and gets a free pass because she married a "duke" (gov) who became "king" (pres) and stayed with him through some really awful acts that no woman should have to put up with. Well latty firggin da. Women do that every day, for MUCH less in return. Does it make her honorable? On some level perhaps. Should it make her untouchable? Absolutely not. But it does. The royal lineage MUST go on. I ask why? It is absolutely insane. Great question! Glad you asked it. As I said before; George Bush in a dress? Seriously, I don't know (but I'm leaning towards the above). It does appear that this is a problem (at least part of the Hillary Paradox). Oh, and BTW: "Bush IS evil" or just plain weak of character....the result is the same.

The wheels continue to fall off the bus. I think that this a very very sad situation. Worse than I ever could have imagined. What next? A tell all book by Rove, Condi, Rumi,....? Is a late admission better than no admission at all?. Should he have just kept his mouth shut at this point? He certainly doesn't need the money (from the book revenues), but it sure looks like sales were the motivation. Perhaps I'm just naive...... If the situation in Nigeria degrades, as the worlds 7th largest oil producer ( documented as that, they very well could produce more off the books), can we expect the same thing to happen there? Crazy times these are.

"AMERICA’s elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil. In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush’s economic policies. However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil,” he says. Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.........." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece I never would have believed that Greenspan would admit that. He must have had a major life changing event......on the scale of religous conversion, a near death experience, or maybe a horse kicked him in the head.....

Excuse me, but exactly what about the current income tax structure is uncomplicated and fair? How many pages is it now? And next year there will be more. The only people that want to keep the status quo are tax lawyers and CPAs that make their living from it. And, of course, those who can afford to pay someone to find loopholes for them. Try this at home: call the info service at the federal tax office 5 different times with exactly the same question. Assuming you will get 5different people each time, and you will, I can guarentee you that you will 5 differenct answers. And none of their answers are legally binding; meaning that if they are wrong, you can't use the info they gave you in a court of law. And every year, it just gets more and more complicated. This thing really is broken, and not just a little. But I'm afraid that the collective *WE just don't have the where-with-all to do anything on a large scale about it. At least not in my lifetime. I'm all for a new amendment that repeals 16 and replaces it with a new tax code. Of course who has the political guts to actually accomplish that? And I'll adimit that I might be afraid of anyone that could actually muster the power to accomplish it.......

I think that Hillary's Univ Health Care campaign may be the only good thing to say about her.....and I lean towards being a libertarian....but if you call me one I'll deny it. How can anybody with a shed of compassion be against that? But who here can list 5 achievements or important legislation that she has championed? Rules: looking it up cheating! no google searching-or any other kind allowed! I consider Hillary as much a true liberal (or true moderate for that matter) about as much as I consider lil George a true Christian....no matter what you think.....that boy doesn't know Jesus! He just used it effectively when he needed to get where he wanted to be. I believe that she is an army of one for one and a chameleon plain and simple. Frankly, she makes my skin crawl....no better than lil George in a dress as far as I'm concerned.....and I'm not talking about hairy arms and legs...they are both parasites. Her involvement in schemes like Whitewater is still an issue to me. The fake manner in which she stands by her weasel man is compeletly transparent....The fake southern accent that she turns on for southern audiences doesn't help. The bottom line, it looks to me like Mrs Clinton will do whatever she needs to do to get elected. I ask this every election year: who would I let baby sit my child? Honestly, I can say that I would not let her baby sit my child. I may be the only one on here that can say that Hillary is my least favorite candidate period in the whole pool (that includes ind, dem, rep, martian, dog, cat...), and in reading your posts here, it appears that no one can say with confidence what side of the fence she is sitting on. Doesn't that worry you? I must also admit that some of the same goes for Rudy on the (supposed) other side. What side of the fence is he sitting on? He looks exactly like a hard core moderate dem to me. OK ladies and gentlemen, I've said my mind and I can take it. Go ahead and throw your stones PS: I don't listen to Rush and his breed of jerks (but I do listen to Air America) so don't even try that:D .

Close, but no cookie. Elements are made up of just one type of atom. The elements can combine to form molecules. They can be the same types of elements or different types of elements. Note also that compounds are a type of molecule that is formed when 2 or more DIFFERENT types of atoms combined. I bring this up mainly because you mentioned mixtures- see below). So, all compounds are molecules but not all molecules are compounds. This site will help you http://education.jlab.org/qa/atom_idx.html Homogeneous mixtures. Are made of different compounds that are evenly distributed so that they have predictable properties. Sugar dissolved in water is an example. Ions can be atoms, compounds, molecules, etc. This just means that they have charge (one or more charges). The charge can be pos and/or neg.

Now, that was absolutely uncalled for. Not nice at all. Why do you have to go and say something nasty like that? You ever even been to Tennesse? BEAUTIFUL place. God's country for sure. And the people are really nice and friendly. Salt of the earth. Most of them would give you the shirts off their backs....well maybe not to you after they got to know you, but I know that they'd give their shirts to nice people.

Texas! Fine state. Fine state. Remember the Alamo! If I were you, I would cede from the union immediately. You know I think I read somewhere that there is no official mandate for the members of the electoral college to vote the way the majorities in their respective states wish them to. If this is true, the electoral college could in theory say: the heck with the Texas voters (for example) and cast their votes for the other guy. I wonder if this is true or not....is there a law that says the members of the electoral college MUST follow the wishes of the majorities in their respective states?....any takers? I MIGHT agree with you except for Geo's points about the short attention span and ignorance of the general populace. I don't agree with some (ok, a lot) of what he says and how he says it, but there is some truth in it, I'm sorry to say. At the risk of sounding like an elitest (I absolutely am not, but know someone will probably use that term in a responce) , I might be for a system that was more along the lines of a direct democracy IF there was a better way to ensure that the people actually took the time and effort to understand the immediate and longer term ramifications of what they would be voting on. I trust everyone knows enough about Lindsay's drug problem, Paris' DUI charges, BradJoina, and Brit's big gut and propensity to go comando in short skirts, but we just don't seem to have the stomach or attention span to learn the critical points about the important issues. And we are much too easily swayed by 30 second sound bites, be they from the politicians themselves, the media, or from so called pundits. I'm all for some sort of a civics test to obtain the right to vote. It's true. Go ahead and call me an elitest. I don't care.

It may also be noteworthy that ions can be atoms or molecules or compounds, even very large polymers. Ions can be negatively charged (anions), positively charged (cations), or have both positive and negative charges (ampholytic molecules; and if the pos and neg charges are equal in number, so they balance each other out, they are called zwitterions- I always like that name. Sounds cool). For example: Na+, K+, Mg++, Ni++, etc are positively charged atoms (cations).....those with two pos charges (++) are called divalent cations. HO- (anion), HSO4- (anion), NH4+ (cation), NO3- (anion) are ionic molecules. Some ionic molecules, like NH4+ and NO3- can combine to form ionic compounds like NH4NO3. DNA is a very large anionic polymer or compound that can have thousands of negative charges on it.

Article 2 of the constitution does in fact mandate an electoral system. Then the 12th Amendment modified the way the electoral college chooses the president after there was some issue in an early election (around 1796 I think) where the pres was from one party and the vp was from another and they fought like cats and dogs. The electoral system was devised to prevent just what you are advocating. It effectively prevents a few densely populated states from determining the outcome of the election. I don't think it is going anywhere anytime soon. And, being from a state of only around 3 or 4 million, personally, I'm actually glad we have it.

Simple. Because the TV/radio/newspaper/internet pundits said so.

Come on. Everybody knows that we are fighting freedom. A global war for terror is being waged. We are creating terrorists and an axis of evil in Iraq, so we can hunt people down and fight them here too. By doing this, we can focus our internal resources on our good citizens such as providing support for illegal domestic wire tapping services and the spreading of fear and paranoia. Good, strong American companies like KBR-Haliburton are providing much needed services, like polluted water, to our brave troops in Iraq. Get it now? BTW: Did you see Brittany's belly? It was huge!

LOL. yeah. so is the quote. What a great movie.

DSM-IV Definition of Addiction A maladaptive pattern of substance use, leading to clinically significant impairment or distress, as manifested by three (or more) of the following, occurring at any time in the same 12-month period: (1) Tolerance, as defined by either of the following: a. A need for markedly increased amounts of the substance to achieve intoxication or desired effect. b. Markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of the substance. (2) Withdrawal, as manifested by either of the following: a. The characteristic withdrawal syndrome for the substance b. The same (or a closely related) substance is taken to relieve or avoid withdrawal symptoms. (3) The substance is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended (loss of control).(4) There is a persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control substance use (loss of control). (5) A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain the substance, use the substance, or recover from its effects (preoccupation). (6) Important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of substance use (continuation despite adverse consequences). (7) The substance use is continued despite knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by the substance (adverse consequences). rey, If you want to discuss this offline, just let me know. Again, I suggest some hard nosed, straight talking, no bull counseling for you and your mother. It really helped me a LOT (even though it was 25 years after my father passed). However, Adult Children of Alcoholics was, in my experience, a bunch of blaming and anger that wasn't adressed by the participants nor the moderators....but that was my personal experience, I know that others have had good experiences with them. Again, just give me a shout if you want to spill your guts man. Peace.

On contraire dear neighbor. "Sort of at war" has been around for a while, a quite useful (but perhaps illegal tool) and it hasn't stopped the use of the draft so far. Facts: 1. Korea was not a declared war (by the US), but a was considered a "police action" from Truman. Result: 1.7 million drafted. 2. The sort of war in Vietnam was never officially declared either. Our spineless Congress ceded its war-making powers to President Johnson in 1964 giving him unchecked authority to "wage war". Result: 9,000,000 military personnel on active duty from 1964 to 1975. Approximately 1/3 of which were drafted. 3. Current situation: The Supreme Court determined that the commander-in-chief has authority to recognize a "state of war" (not to declare war but to wage sort of wars) initiated against the United States and may in these circumstances unilaterally send U.S. troops into battle. Bush has stated that his powers as commander-in-chief allow him to act independently in defense of the nation. But that doesn't make it right. Some of us believe that a declaration of war is a constitutional requirement and the constitution has been violated since Korea. Of course the congress deserves almost as much blame. The bottom line is, the draft has been used in sort of wars and will continue to be used in sort of wars (by both parties). Of course a minor detail like a presidential election must be dealt with before it:mad: is initiated.......