Phi for All

The mighty skunk sprays, his miasmic victims scream: Mike, Angie and John.

It stays for eternity.

Keyes debated really well in 2000. I liked McCain better back then too, but Keyes kicked his butt and W's too. It was a shame that the clear loser in those debates went on to serve two terms as the worst president of my lifetime. In your opinion. If you want to provide anything to back this up, give me a definition of "battle for equality" that won't throw my own modest efforts out the window. It's a reality in much more of the country than when *you* were born. He's a welcome member in my family, and I *wish* he would move from three doors down to next door; I'm not a big fan of the family to the west, they never come to the block parties. I don't get the doctor example; even my whitest relatives have raved about their black doctors, but I could see their asses pucker if a transfusion came from a black blood donor. We're talking about depression-era Missourans here with all sorts of misconceptions about science and hematology. I live in Denver, so you have to phone for any cab you might take. They don't roam the streets looking for fares like they do in other cities, except in front of the convention hall and the stock show. Yeah, but you'd have to date your cousin and talk about NASCAR the whole time, so besides being brave you'd have to be stupid too. Think about what you're arguing for here. I don't like seeing figures like "at least 30%" without citing a poll or study, but hell, don't you realize what this means if it's true? It means that black people can still be president despite the burden of being raised by old white people!

With military struggles in two countries and a country divided ideologically, it certainly throws him in the deep end of the pool just as he's putting his trunks on.

Leprechaun fart and purple unicorn erection.

That's weird. The logs show that three new members joined today using US Secret Service email addresses and the usernames Timberwolf, Trailblazer and Renegade. They joined, voted in this poll and now I can't find any trace of them ever having been here. I think someone's been influencing this vote in a big way.

Ah, the Up-With-America/Rip-Off-Dickens plot twist. I was afraid it would cast Americans in a bad light. moviesandmusic1 reputation, subtract 10.

I think American Carol was rated XXX. Is this thread a plug for the porn industry bailout?

Just to clarify, don't forget that farmers get to keep most of the money they make because their income tax structure lets them write off practically everything they purchase as being a legitimate cost of doing business. They often house and feed their workers as part of their job package, their homes are on their place of business, and their vehicles are most often dual purpose and therefore can be amortized on their taxes. They do pay more in property taxes, but then they have a lot more property and therefore more real wealth. I'm not sure you'd find many working farmers these days who aren't millionaires (if that phrase retains any real meaning anymore). I'm just saying.

I remember that, but I also remember hearing just a few years ago that overall it costs the government more. I think they were factoring in producing public service spots for their anti-smoking ads. Good point though. Have their been any studies done on a link between marijuana smoking and cancer? I would imagine the instances of emphysema would be less, unless the smoker was puffing up what the average cigarette smoker goes through every day. That seems excessive, even if weed were cheaper due to decriminalization.

Taxpayers had nothing to do with it. The Bell System was a corporation, who's prices were regulated by the government. I don't have to demonstrate anything. I asked you for an example of a formerly government-run entity that was taken over by a private corporation where prices came down and you cited the Bell System, which was not run by the government, ever. The system had plenty of time to get used to deregulated price structures and chose to keep them high. Again, it wasn't until microwave transmissions made it possible for companies like MCI and Sprint to challenge the Baby Bells before we saw an appreciable drop in prices. But that had nothing to do with former government ownership being privatized and the price going down over time. I can't believe privatizing our roads would save anyone any money. But again, this is just an example of market competition driving innovation, not an example of what I asked for.

The Bell System was never state owned. It was regulated as a public utility starting right after WWI (for national security reasons, the government didn't want a whole bunch of phone lines from different companies running all over the country). It was regulated by the states to provide service at a higher cost to more densely populated areas and lower cost to rural areas where it actually cost more to run and maintain lines, but where people could afford the service less. When the Bell System was broken up (mainly because they also wanted to get into computers, which failed miserably, and were then assessed as the monopoly they had always been), the resulting Baby Bells actually charged more because owners of telephones were now responsible for their own maintenance, but at the same rates. Selling cheaper phones became a big business where before these insanely indestructible phones were given free as part of the service. It wasn't until microwave transmissions allowed competitors to bypass AT&Ts lock on the landlines that phone service became cheaper. So that's not a good example of a formerly government-run entity that was taken over by a private corporation where prices came down. I keep hearing that this argument from pro-deregulation fans, but I have yet to see a credible instance. I have directly experienced the opposite though. But if I were to ask you for a loan of several thousand dollars at no interest for 14 months or so, you'd probably say no. You like Uncle Same better than me.

He's busy with the new term so I'll answer for him. He was referring to the "couple hundred million in Defense spending (if you're lucky)" that could be *cut*.

Do you have any examples of a formerly government-run entity that was taken over by a private corporation where prices did come down? I can't see past my monthly energy bill atm.

I reread the OP and I think the key is here: Creationism and Intelligent Design have no evidence that can stand up to scientific scrutiny. None, absolutely none whatsoever. Eventually some form of omniscience or omnipotence is used by creationism as a substitute for logical argument, and then the discussion is ended. Evolution has literally millions of examples of evidence that make it a strong, solid scientific theory. And science is willing to adapt the theory when evidence proves that it's necessary. Intelligent Design is rigid, inflexible and completely falls back to simple religion when it's misinformation is debunked. Science can't be used on the supernatural. Period. It's like measuring the height of a tree by using a good story. Wrong tool. Edit: Right here is a good post we used to have stickied in Evolution, Morphology and Exobiology but it attracted too many creationists (who got it Googling but never bothered to actually read it) and was removed. It's still over in Speculations and Pseudoscience though. It gives some very good points on evolution and it's evidence, without burying the reader under the literal mounds available.

Welcome newcomers all! Ooooh! The big kind or the small kind? You know those big bubble bags they put like 3 or 4 in a box to pack it? I want a whole roll of those! Here, try this when your Christmas present runs out.

Evolution uses the scientific method to observe, evaluate, experiment and predict testable, repeatable phenomena. Intelligent design relies on a supernatural designer at the heart of things. They can't really co-exist; ID is basically religion, and since God can't be observed, tested or predicted with any reliability, science is the wrong instrument for measuring Him. Science is for measuring the physical, natural world. Religion is for the supernatural. They can co-exist, and do quite well until creationists try to use science via Intelligent Design to refute evolution, or when scientists try to use science to disprove God. Science can be used to refute claims that certain phenomena are evidence of the supernatural, but it can't be used to disprove something that refuses to be analyzed. Imo, if creationists could simply allow that the world might be as old science tells us it is, admit that a literal Bible forces many believers into a paradox and stop believing that their god is purposely deceitful by divinely planting all the evidence we see before us, they might see that their god is even more awesome by being patient enough to wait billions of years for It's creations to reach the point they are at now. Again imo, that would be more divine than instantaneous creation. Many religions embrace evolution in this way, including the largest segment of Christianity. Sorry, I didn't want this to become a religious discussion. Since I am involved, another Moderator can delete that last part if necessary.

Haiku! Haiku! It's off to work with you! With dwarves it doesn't rhyme. __________________________ January 8, the day I will remember! I don't know for what. __________________________ With you at my side, there is nothing I can't do to not be unglad.

Please offer a personal point of view on this, something to discuss. Pasting only the work of other is not the purpose of this forum.

Yes. I'm going to help you by starting your very own thread, a complicated Copy Post maneuver involving some vB somersaults, half a pound of hutzpah and a roll of duct tape. Presto-chango, Bob's your uncle and your thread's right here. And no it's not.

Warning: This is a large thread on current mainstream cosmological concepts. Any speculative additions will be moved to the proper section. If you are posting to this thread rather than starting a new one in Speculations, please keep to the original intent.

Once you post in a thread you have exactly Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged6 hours to edit your post before it is locked. This is to prevent people going back and deleting their posts after a lot of responses and wasting everyone's time, something that happened just today, as a matter of fact, even with the 6 hour limit.

Expletives while speaking are different from the written word. You have the chance to formulate your posts the way *you* want them to sound, complete with punctuation to help the reader understand what *you* are trying to say. Use what you've got and refine it. Try not mentioning your age so much if you think it shouldn't matter. Try not to be so negative. Try not having "people hate me" in the signature that adorns each of your posts. If what you're doing isn't working, try something else. You assume too much, and put too big a burden on yourself. As one of my favorite Athenians once said, "Nothing is easier than self-deceit. For what each man wishes that he also believes to be true." Let's get back on topic. Use this small opportunity to begin a great enterprise.

Someone once told me he was afraid that if people knew his age they wouldn't take him seriously here anymore. I told him that in science, as nowhere else, it's your accomplishments that people pay attention to. He was fifteen at the time, and had joined SFN at your age, made his mistakes, learned quicker than anyone else I've ever seen, was eventually made a moderator and then managed to convince the site owner that he had what it takes to be one of four full administrators. He's now seventeen but who cares? You get treated the way you expect to be treated here, so expect better from people. Btw, swearing in print doesn't make you sound older, just coarser.

I don't see this as an interesting perspective at all. Burris isn't being prevented from being named, he's being prevented from being named by Blagojevich. I thought that was pretty clear. And after all the scrutiny, it seems like Burris would *have* to be squeaky clean *because* Blagojevich named him. And I think anyone who calls Obama foolish is just being a partisan hack. Obama may be many things, and he's got an awful lot to prove to me, but foolish he is not.