pcs

Apparantly the troops disagree with you.

How about "Worst SFN Atheist?" Yeah, I guess he's more of the rough and rugged badass, though with a heart of gold.

I don't know about that. Are we discounting scientists and professors who've made their fortunes in industry? Isn't this like comparing high school coaches to their NBA counterparts?

On the other hand, in the United States at least, public employee unions aooear to take it up the rear whenever they try something bound to upset a public dependent on their services. MTA and the air traffic controllers are two of the more striking (no pun intended) examples.

Nah, you just don't love the game enough. Seriously, society can and does pay a helluva a lot less than ballplayer salaries to get what it wants out of profs and special ed teachers. Can't say I blame them; there's a helluva a lot of educators out there. Not that many A-list pro-ball players.

Yes, and I nominate revprez.

When aggrandizing the past to the point it grows larger than life, it helps to note that we teach undergrads what it took 18th and 19th century thinkers to unravel. Assigning genius simply because somebody thought of something before anyone else for no good reason at all has nothing to do with our discussion. I've never been one to put somebody's claim to authority in the way of a good argument. I don't believe I asked as much. Presumably to further develop electrical technologies that had been around since the 17th century; particularly means of insulating or conducting harmful electrical charges away from life and property. Sure they could. In fact, they almost certainly had an idea of what use their knowledge might serve if developed where it concerned electrical problems of the day. By same reason you mean "I don't like it." Which once again renders your choice of "censorship" as meaningless. I'm pretty sure the "semantics" bit was just an unintentional turn of phrase injected to drive home the point that...well...you don't like it. Or maybe we both know its false. Or maybe, which is most likely the case, we disagree. Largely because no information was quelched and unlike you I don't see anything unseemly about a public affairs appointee looking after the interests of his sponsors. It is. Will look forward to it.

Well that wasn't very British of Livingstone. Hey, you gotta hand it to the Adjudicators. They fiercely defend the British cultural love affair with understatement from the threat of hyperbole.

That doesn't sound right. I was under the impression that the body of theoretical work vis a vis discussion of practical application, observation and experimentation is miniscule. We can sum up base physical knowledge in a single book of equations and declaratives. You can't similarly the compress billions of pages detailing man's practical exploration of math and science. Which was largely a development of mathematical physics, an inexpensive, not so very labor intensive pursuit. And a 100 years after Stokes and Maxwell developed competence in the field puts us in the mid-20th century. That simply doesn't follow -- there's no reason to rule out the possibility that practical Maxwells--aka, inventors--may have formulated a theory of electromagnetism. I don't think "censorship" or "semantics" fits in that sentence in any meaningful way; not unless we're simply throwing words around for their connotations. So says the Lord. But wait, you're not the lord. You're my friend Sisyphus. And so let me challenge you on the whole harmful to the scientific process bit and, more importantly, the claim that what's harmful to the scientific process is contrary to the public interest.

I don't think there's anything to the claim that left and right wing politics, carried to extremes, result in totalitarianism or restrictions of all freedoms. I don't consider France a totalitarian regime, anymore than I consider Ireland one or the US a century ago. I think there's an argument that statism, carried to an extreme, enables and encourages authoritarian oppression. As the 20th century has shown, this is predominantly a feature of leftist regimes. Where right wing authoritarians have emerged, coinciding with economic liberalism, their regimes were extremely weak and faltered within a generation of leadership (Chile). PS. What defines a political moderate? Hopefully, I'll get an answer a bit more substantial than "disagree with somethings, agree with others."

Oh, the irony. Even if I forget that "stabilize economic growth" is as meaningless and pithy as any technobabble I've heard in a long time, what is the difference between your position and the typical liberal line? Is this an example of independent political thought, or parroting partisan hackery? Wait, I've got a response. Nothing is more restrictive and controlling than the debauched, suffocating nannyism and racialism of the secularist Left--you know, the group that's hijacked the Democratic Party. I'm pretty sure this also counts as parroting partisan hackery. One good turn deserves another. Leftists want to censor the Internet, they do censor the media, they have cynically and irresponsibly stereotyped women and ethnic minorities and shunt them to state subsidized hellholes, force homosexuality on our children, mass murder the unborn, disenfranchise the religious majority and so much more. You could write for the DNC, if the DNC didn't already have an overabundance of people with the same ideas and the same language. I do think my vote makes a difference, and I think leftists are dangerously stupid, so I don't vote for them.

Imaginary friends, perhaps?

Hippies suck.

Will has a very interesting view of the necessary and proper clause for a conservative. You're thinking of Will Safire.

That's not actually the case. Both parties voir dire the jury; in some jurisdictions they have a set number of preemptory challenges but beyond that the judge makes the call.

And the President does. That's where winning elections comes into play.

I think the VP did pretty damn well. Answered respectful questions, didn't pander a bit, laid it to rest. Of course, I sincerely doubt left-leaning haters are going to see it that way.

Apology to who?

There's just something incredibly hilarious about Bryant Gumble and Winter Olympics in the same sentence.

Or maybe it's great and you should give it a shot sometime. Or maybe adolescence is characterize by self-aggrandizing appeals to lofty yet woefully nebulous ideals backed by little in the way of means, ability or the genuine inclination to act on them. In the end, it's a whole lotta talk until you start winning elections.

Gotta love this bit: VP Cheney, who was surrounded by law enforcement from the moment of the shooting on, who immediately saw to his friend injuries and safed the area, is now being compared to a Masshole who left a young woman's body in a river for a day before telling anyone. Just goes to show you how incredibly f'ed up some people are in the head.

I'm not so sure what's hypocritical about defending unborn children from the most grotesque, lethal form of scientific slavery. Or win elections and ban it. If you want to win, play the game better.

Arguing that the VP may have been drunk, and therefore would've nearly committed manslaughter, is pretty damn close. Whether that stems from a knee-jerk, callous disregard for human life where it concerns people who disagree with you--your partisan demons, I should say--is not my call to make.

And clearly, you've developed the capacity to transport yourself through space and time to witness the events for yourself. Bring a video camera next time. None...repeat, none of the participants or witnesses have accused VP Cheney of ignoring safety or otherwise acting irresponsibly. The Kenedy County Sheriff's deptartment within 48 hours came out completely satisfied that they were dealing with nothing more than a hunting accident. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department found nothing afoul other than the licenses of two out-of-staters where not properly stamped under a law that passed last September. No, what we have is a lot of carping, of course, the Washington press corps, the bloggers, and members here--all three of which generally have two things in common: not one of them was there and few if any of them have any experience hunting. A man gets injured--a man, might I add, that Sisyphus never of before Sunday or at least has given no indication that he has during his entire time on SFN--and the best we can do is think of ways to denigrate the Vice President, hunters and Republicans? Come on. Caaaaahm'aaaaahn.