john5746

Some of us are, some are not. Even the First Lady resorts to this kind of rhetoric, although she was baited into it. I like the example of the man beaten in NO. He said from the get-go that it wasn't race related. The activists are crying wolf so much that it falls on deaf ears now. I am no fan of Spike. He is overrated IMO.

Someone get a rope!

I am not an expert, but looks like a breed is a result of domestication. The two examples you gave: (1) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WILD ANIMAL AND A DOMESTIC ANIMAL (2) DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO DOMESTIC ANIMALS. No wild animal can be considered a breed?

I think you have ADD and maybe a little schitzo. You are hijaking your own thread. Have fun.

A pretty boring world. We are not ants and even ants have seperate roles in their society. If your only goal is to improve the "fitness" of the human species - what is your definition of fitness? How much of the individual do you sacrifice to attain this goal? Do we all just plug in like a battery to the matrix? The path is more important than the goal. I would rather one person have a life with some happiness and suffering than the whole universe populated with drones. So, it seems a waste to you that someone eats at McD's or watches MTV, but some think it is a waste to learn all the details of star formation, instead of just enjoying the view. Be humble and realize that you don't know how everyone should behave and that they should not all be like you.

This is the same argument the right says concerning race and poverty on the left. It may be treu of some, but that is a very small minority. Many republicans are pro-choice because it can be argued to be a conservative issue legally. Having the government step and tell someone what they can do with their bodies is not conservative. Of course, making the exception for murder is understandable, but not eveyone agrees it is murder.

One reason is that they give what the US consumer wants. Gas wasn't expensive enough for people to pay a premium on a hybrid. Plus, the western mind tends toward innovation in leaps - catapult from gas to something else. Well, the market is finally asking for fuel efficiency. So, what was idiotic for the government to demand a couple of years ago is now demanded by the public. Well, the Japanese have a solution that is ready.

I also don't understand that if it is duplicative and unnecessary, how does it limit Bush?

One problem I see with outsourcing are the things that don't get outsourced. Medical and government entities don't get outsourced by and large. So, while electronics and such stagnate on prices, medical care, drugs and government keep increasing. It will be more and more difficult for people to afford medical care, college, housing and other government services. I can see drugs being outsourced eventually, but many services cannot be outsourced. Those wages need to be knocked down relative to all the other wages so people can afford them. I don't see that happening, but this "bubble" will need to burst eventually.

This is the most common argument for torture. If you say probable information, then anyone can invoke that at any time. Also, as McCain said, escaping pain doesn't guarantee the truth. Drugs - if there is a real truth serum, not sure that would be considered torture would it?

McCain I can't find that actual document, but basically, looks like it is saying American soldiers should treat all detainees as POW's. At first glance, I am of the opinion that terrorists are not soldiers and can be treated differently. While this may be the case, I don't think torture should be one of them. I go with McCain, he has experienced it and makes a moving argument about keeping ones honor. I am not a soldier, but I can see the logic in feeling more just in fighting for a country that applies a little of the golden rule to its enemies. The problem I see with terrorists is that they are not bound by a country or perceived ruler. This makes it difficult to let them go and not fear retribution. Who tells them to stop fighting?

The above is from your website. I think I will wait until your theories win you a Nobel, then I will listen.

Phi, I like your idea, but I can just hear the media blaming the next friendly fire or military screw up on the consolidation of the armed forces.

unsubstantiated garbage.

This sounds interesting, if you actually have evidence supporting your theory and not trying to poke holes in current theories. You will probably be able to sell it to evangelicals - they are used to reading

They have the opportunity to grill her under oath. If they feel they don't have enought information, they can vote no. I don't think everyone that has ever talked to her must reveal everything they know. Everyone is careful when providing info to their "enemy". Even within companies, departments are careful about giving information to other departments, etc. Dobson obviously believes she will vote based on her beliefs, which he shares. He doesn't distinguish moral beliefs from law, most lawyers have to at some point, but he is hoping she won't most of the time.

Yes, very excessive. It is more fun to spend money with the military. To see their high tech gadgets blow targets up, etc. It makes people feel that the military is worth spending money on. Poverty and education, those are boring and seem to never improve anyway, so it is seen as wasteful. In reality both can be wasteful and need to be kept in check.