Helix

Not to pick on you about your position, but what is "conservative" about those issues? I realize the GOP position is as you've stated, but what makes that "conservative"? I don't really see those issues as conservative or liberal. Liberals will and have attacked and waged war on other countries. And securing borders has been a non-partisan demand from the people of the country I thought.

 

Anyway, I understand your position on them, I just don't understand labeling those positions as conservative or liberal in this case. So, Obama, to me anyway, may not represent two important views for you, but he's still a liberal.

Taking a tough stand on immigration - border fences, increased patrols etc - has been an issue primarily associated with the Right Wing and the Conservative Republicans, though I'm sure some Dems support it too. A conservative stance on immigration has been viewed as an issue of, well, conservatives. Looking at major political figures, it seems that Republicans take a more conservative stand on mexican immigration and thus, I view this as a platform of the GOP.

Also, you mentioned liberals declaring war on nations, which is true, but this is not war. This is denying fundamental human rights to those who are not "like us." But that is neither here nor there; the point is being against immigration is viewed as primarily a conservative thing.

And what exactly is that action?

The Bush admin. has done quite a bit, but not necessarily good things. Wiretapping, fudging the facts on Iraq, Gitmo coverups, Abu ghraib coverups, these are *actions* but not correct actions. I believe we need to keep fighting the War on Terror, but not using the same tactics, the same actions, as we are now. Torture flights, false imprisonment, it all needs to stop. Yes, Bush has been busy, but what has he been busy doing? That's my point.

Only Gore could make someone like Bush seem charismatic.

 

Other than party politics, I really think Bush won(the first time) as a backlash against Clinton's charisma. He seemed to be more trustworthy because of the lack of polish.

 

So this election may go to someone who has charisma. Someone who seems to know what is going on, even when they have no clue.

That's interesting; I see what you're saying. After Clinton's glaze and smile, the people were looking for honesty. Someone who would willingly define "is".

But I still believe that in light of the situation in Iraq - which will no doubt go down as the biggest failure since Vietnam - the Public (capital P) will want policy and more importantly, change. Handshakes and baby-kissing is all fine and good, but it will not stop Al-Qaeda. What we need, and I believe many agree with me, is less bullsh*t (pardon my language) and more correct action. People are starting to see through the phonies in DC. Holden Caufield would be proud.

So, I think the election will swing to policy and not charisma thought personality is of course always a major issue. See the case at hand, Obama, for proof.

I'm not a huge fan of "rank" in forums, especially in one like this. It sends the message that those of lower "rank" don't know as much about science, or that their views are not as valid as someone with a higher rank. I've seen the system on many other forums, and I generaly disagree with it.

Is it possibe, in theory, to have something be at a "dead-end" in evolution? Isn't there always, some constructive change that can be made? E.g couldn't the sponges evolve to reprodice more frequently?

I agree, it can be hard to formulate an opinion with people bashing its rudiments along the way.

And I hope that this next election will be based on issues; there is a good chance this will be the case. The American people have seen what a candidate with all charisma and no plans can do to a nation, and I believe that come election they will vote for someone who not only smiles nicely for CNN but also has the convictions and blueprints to drag our nation out of the holes we are currently in. I'm an optimist.

That "centrist-republican" charge makes me curious, because conservatives are calling him the most liberal candidate in years. Obviously there's going to be spin coming from various quarters about him throughout the election cycle, but I assume your opinion is an honest one. But I'm curious how you drew that conclusion. Do you see any of the other candidates as being closer to your position? Is it a specific-issue thing?

 

If you don't want to share it's cool, but I'd like to hear more. You're not the first person I've heard say that, and I don't assume it means you're way out there to the left, either (though maybe you are, I don't know).

 

OnTheIssues.org also has him pegged as on the liberal/centrist line, but this makes little sense to me as well, given his statements and voting record (posted on their own site).

I've heard that claim too - that he's a very liberal candidate - but I honesty believe he's not that liberal. Yes, he tows the Dem. line for some issues, of course, but on others he's just a blue Republican:

-- On immigration, while he supports a guest-worker program, Obama also backed construction of an 700 mi border fence. Not very liberal.

-- He has not ruled out military actions against Iran. I was shocked to hear this, as this is a very GOP viewpoint.

That may only be two issues, but on them he is very conservative and they are some of the more important issues of the day. Granted, I'm far more than "a liberal", so maybe I want candidates to be more leftist than the DNC would like them, but he still appears to have some "red" in him.

But hes better than Hillary. Anyone would be.

Hey everyone,

I read a book a little while back called Beating back the Devil (http://www.beatingbackthedevil.com/) about the rapid-response section of the CDC, the EIS. They are the first ones to the site of an epidemic or health crisis and are even deployed into conflict regions for long-term help. They gather info on emerging crisises and create plans for how the brunt of the gov't should respond. Their goal is to figure out what the hell's going on in a problem area -- like SARS Asia or Avian Flu Turkey -- and handle the problem the best they can. The EIS coordinates the efforts of the WHO, CDC and local governments to contain and neutralize health threats. They deploy all over the world, often at a moment's notice. The EIS is comprised of doctors, health professionals and even government agents.

It's a facinating agency -- the CIA meets the NIH. I was wondering if anyone had any more information on it, or other health emergencies they've been involved in?

Helix

Even though I'm a leftist, I dislike Obama.

First, he's not "liberal" enough for me; he seems to be just a centrist-republican. If the DNC is going to get a candidate, I'd like them to actually find a liberal.

Second, he has almost no experience, and considering the fragile state the US is in, we need an expert. He's been a Senator for only a breif period of time, during which he got very little done. It seems he just wanted the word "Senator" for his Pres. Resume, and thought little of the actual job.

Mokele is right, he does pay attention to important issues, but I honestly don't view him as a strong oval-office-worthy candidate. That's just me.

Sounds like this is homework help ...

But anyway, if you're against stem cells being used you should probably try and go after how they are harvested. Most - if not all - opponents of SC's oppose them in part because they are harvested from embryos. They view this as immoral. However, there are alternate ways of acquiring stem cells - in bone marrow for example, but these SC's are fairly limited in their uses.

So, yeah, do some some more research and try to find out more about the sources of SC's. Opponents normally go after that.

Thanks so much, Skye. I understand now, which is a huge help.

The vote to set a time-table for withdrawel was never meant to be serious, it was a tactic used to 1) Set up the debate for the coming elections and 2) "Check up" on who supported what.

Did you even see the vote outcome? It was around 196-4 against. The vote wasn't serious.

Hey everyone.

I'm starting an internship in a few weeks and I'm a little confused by one aspect of what I'll be doing. I don't know how to prepare (stock) solutions, such as 28% NaCl. (Actually I'm not even sure that's the correct way to note that.) Can anyone tell me how to prepare solutions or direct me to a website? Thanks.

Helix

retrotransposons contribute enormously to plant evolution.

 

as i mentioned before, telomerase has reverse transcriptase (RT) activity, indeed telomerase is thought to have evolved from a RT.

Well telomerase IS (partially) an RT. There is the template for the telomeres and then the RT catalyst component.

EDIT: Sorry, i took RT to mean reverse-transcriptase. Yeah stupid me. Anyway I haven't heard that theory, what's it about?

Thanks Ecoli and 5614, I thought so but wasn't sure.

Hey, everyone.

In MSN chat, if someone sends me a pic and I choose to download/accept it in the chat box and it says "you've successfully downloaded to my_documents/myname/pictures" does the other person see all of that? Thanks for any input.

Memory is possible because of the configurations atoms make. By arranging themselves into molecules and proteins and cells, the atoms have made complex structures capable of life. So, by more organization they are able to contain memory. How? I have no idea.

But in a pure Communism, there is no government. The idea is to have gov't as a scaffolding and remove it slowly to have an autonomous society.

Steph:

I'm adamantly against eugenics as it's flawed from both a moral and scientific perspective. I can't believe some are for it, but to each his own.

Nazism is not eugenics' date=' and [i']vice-versa[/i].

 

That argument is as futile as saying American Republicanism is wrong because it murdered Iraqi civilians. The one is not the be all and end all of the other.

I understand that and didn't even say that they were the same. I only infered that by saying the Nazi race would be superior to what we have now -- which is what he said -- he favored Nazism.

Eugenics was a part of the Nazis longterm domestic policies that probably could have created a walking talking race of godly beings in comparison to the relatively weak genetic make up of modern mankind.

So then you think Nazism is correct?

This is amazing; it actually makes good suggestions. I'm going to name my kid after you, xeluc.

I've done SO for two years and it was really fun -- mostly because our school was so low-key about it, it was more fun science than competitive science. No, the two don't go together.

not a strawman. your post was that eugenics has had terrible things done in it's name. that has nothing to do with it. i tried to show that with the example of god.

But I'm not disagreeing that horrible things have been done in the name of religion. That's an argument that isn't.

pros:

 

decrease in diseases of our species

decreases the number of children needing to be adopted

 

cons:

a few people get minor surgery

Minor surgery? Minor? Are you kidding me? FORCED STERILIZATION? I'm not going to even comment, that's so outrageous. I will say you have some serious gonads to pass of the kind of thing the Nazis did as minor surgery.

Fox is fair and balanced...I can't even believe they get this by the Truth in Advertising laws.

I should point out that I actually support neither side in this issue. I'm playing devil's advocate, attacking anything I see that I find incorrect or that is a logical fallacy.

1. Are you mad??? Half of why I dislike eugenics is because it denies those children the right to live. Don't even try that

2. Actually you've made it clear what your morals are by supporting eugenics, just as I have made mine clear by opposing it.

3. When was it refuted? I must have missed that part. As a note, saying something happened does not mean it did. You have not refuted my argument about morality. More accurately, you have dodged it.

4. Yes it far more an invasion because sterilization takes away something, and in a horrible way. And the Constitution is irrelevant as I'm talking globally.

5. So? That doesn't make it right. Way to strawman that; I never said anything about religion let alone fighting for it.

I think the real question, as somebody said, is: How do the pros outweigh the cons?