RuntheDamnBall

You must have really hated those nuts who rallied around the tragic Terry Schiavo situation, I imagine.

Oh, a Baldwin-Streisand ticket would just be fabulous.

For you, the FSM author is an idiot. For me, he's a clever guy pointing out that scientifically, his "beliefs" are as credible to teach in a science classroom setting as ID. I come from a religious background and was not offended. I understand it's a touchy subject for some, but I also think God gave us a good sense of humor. Those drawings are priceless. Your second point doesn't really defend the teaching of ID. It defends God-neutral teaching, which I think is fine and should probably be fought for. Pro- or anti- religious teachings in the classroom are problematic and should be strictly avoided. If you've raised your kids right, they will make their own decisions based on what you've taught them and what they've learned about the world. Forcing anything else is detrimental, IMHO.

Elitist!

No one's calling you retarded. If I might clarify Coli's point, again, we're talking about what we teach kids in school. You are free to teach your kids what you want at home in terms of religion, but that doesn't have to mean that we junk science/the scientific method/the curiosity of discovery in the lab or the classroom.

But the latter is a non-scientific theory that cannot be investigated in a science classroom any further than it already has.

True enough.

Because he isn't arguing for not teaching ID. He's arguing for teaching it along with another ID theory. The argument, outside of the joke, is over a basis in science vs. a basis in religion, as the foundation for science classes.

Link

If I were single I'd hop into that pouch in a second.

The original posters are out of their minds. She's a fox. For every one of those shots, there's one of these. Damn.

I fear that going there would take a lot longer than I have as regards the pro-choice issue. I also think a law forces people to think twice about a situation. What do you think about speed limits? Sure, if they were eliminated, many people would drive safely because they should. But a lot more would go a lot faster because, hell, they want to. Using the law to allow people to police themselves better is not a bad thing, and I would argue that there is a line, your point about having the gov't tell us what to and not to eat being an extreme version on the other side. My point is, the government already does tell you that you will be held responsible if you feed your kid poison. So why should it be any more legal to put them at another kind of risk?

Oh, brother.

I agree with you, but, if you're a kid with an arsehole parent with no common sense, do you deserve to go to the grave for it? I think kids under the driving age should by law have to wear them. Everyone else could set a good example by wearing them, or not wearing them and biting it.

The Hell's Satans... named after Homer's motorcycle gang.

I'm glad to be hearing that from you, quite honestly.

But, behind Grossman, Manning and Alex Smith? Roethlisberger I'll take, he's actually been successful, though limited. Smith has much further to go, and Grossman and Manning I would say have as much to prove as J.P.

That being said, bringing in Simon is a major vote of no confidence for Edwards and to a lesser extent Anderson. I'd say, we bring in Simon, Edwards is gone. I can't see the guy wanting to be a backup for the rest of his career. I could be wrong. Some people are comfortable in such situations. Making such a move (understanding that it's a very hypothetical one right now), while it may be good for the defense, might not be best for the team, if you know what I mean.

I'd say you're dead-on, but for me that's just a symptom of the larger problem in the hegemonic structure of the media. This fabricated conflict is just grease for the gears of a monolithic machine. It's the reason nothing gets done, and the truth takes a backseat.

Also from that link... Just goes to show you, for all the people pulling for Baas around here, the guy already tweaked his hammy. Out till/thru September. So much for that all-Pro Niners line.

LIBERAL MEDIA BAD! FOX NEWS GOOD! I feel like I'm in an echo chamber here. What effing difference is there? The problem is not one side or the other, it's both, and it's the fact that a juicy, salacious story catches more eyes and sells more advertising. It's that simple. Don't go acting like Brit Hume is the epitome of responsible "reporting."

The problem with this assessment is that it denies that the green population & zero population growth movements have had any effect, while they obviously have. Our waste habits have changed to an extent (recycling, etc), higher standards have been enforced. Projections are just that, projections. They are meant to be sobering and to alter the pace. Without a doubt, most predictions made for such distant dates will not ring true; they are only based on our current information. That doesn't mean they are useless, for they show us the potential consequences of life as we live it, and force us to at least consider those facts. People don't understand that being green doesn't mean one has to go live in a yert and be a subsistence farmer, taking one shower a month. It could be something as simple as pushing for more recycling in your communities, or driving a hybrid.

Damn, Wilco, "Passenger Side," A.M. Best song on that record. Sticking with the country-rock, let's try this one, for the 12-year-old in all of us: This destination once held salvation We fly starfighter # 1479 There was destruction within the fortress Collecting bonus points, invade the enemy line. But I brought the quarters, and you earned the credits And we'll go marching elegant through this fight. Alert the captain, and combat the hatches The tailgunner's lost forever, shift to hyper-speed now. It's annihilation. Farewell good soldier. We flew starfighter # 1479. But I brought the quarters, and you earned the credits And we'll go marching elegant through this fight.

My point was not "Bush bad." My point was that political power and the resulting confluence with big business is a stagnating force, rather than a progressive one. And I'm not fooled into believing one side is better than the other. Both are so guilty it's not even funny. Also, the problem is that being responsible has been painted as being radical. Being in bed with wealthy corporate- and/or special-interest donors is nothing short of normal in American politics.