Is Hilary finished?

[ivan1]

I thought the evolution thing was settled a while ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjKMhtyI3L8

something to the effect of - if we evolved from monkeys, how come we havent seen any more monkeys turn into humans...

[slaughtr]

My results:

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Stephen Colbert (campaign halted) (84%) Information link
3. John McCain (80%) Information link
4. Duncan Hunter (78%) Information link
5. Mitt Romney (78%) Information link
6. Alan Keyes (77%) Information link
7. Chuck Hagel (not running) (77%) Information link
8. Sam Brownback (withdrawn, endorsed McCain) (77%) Information link
9. Fred Thompson (76%) Information link
10. Tom Tancredo (withdrawn, endorsed Romney) (75%) Information link
11. Newt Gingrich (says he will not run) (74%) Information link
12. Rudolph Giuliani (73%) Information link
13. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (72%) Information link
14. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn, endorsed Giuliani) (56%) Information link
15. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (51%) Information link
16. Ron Paul (51%) Information link
17. Mike Huckabee (50%) Information link
18. Al Gore (not announced) (37%) Information link
19. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (36%) Information link
20. Bill Richardson (35%) Information link
21. Hillary Clinton (34%) Information link
22. Joseph Biden (withdrawn) (33%) Information link
23. John Edwards (32%) Information link
24. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (31%) Information link
25. Christopher Dodd (withdrawn) (30%) Information link
26. Mike Gravel (21%) Information link
27. Barack Obama (21%) Information link
28. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (18%) Information link
29. Dennis Kucinich (13%) Information link
30. Elaine Brown (5%) Information link

[TimMullen]

Originally Posted by fishguy

I think thats how the US media would like its citizens to think as well.
the bias in the media is amazing when you are bold enough to open your eyes and see it.

I've been watching that in the Washington post for some time now.

For about a two month period, I kept track of it, and the Post had an article about Hillary on the front page for at least five days of each week.

Even this mornings paper has a large color picture of Hillary (above the fold - where the important stories go) proclaiming that she won in NH, and has a small photo of McCain below the fold.

The day after the Iowa primary, they had a photo of Hillary with the headline indicating that she hadn't won and the smaller headline that Obama had. If they don't have an article about Hillary herself, they have one about here daughter appearing on the Campaign. Never such stories about any other candidates families.

[Eye Candy]

Originally Posted by Praksis

Sorry, have to go down this tangent as this argument has always annoyed the hell out of me.

Why would they call it the fact of evolution, to make you happy? It's not the terminology used, so why should the scientific community change just because it doesn't match up with what you think it should be called?

I must have missed the day someone presented an alternative to evolution that stood up to scientific scrutiny. To say evolution has been proven right would be incorrect, to say no one has proven it wrong would be more accurate. (mathmatically it's a bitch to prove based on experiment you are 100% right, easier to say you're 99.99% sure you're not wrong) After a few generations have come & passed with no alternatives standing up, it really does become a bit insane to worry about the issue that it's still called a theory.

Sorry, still not agreeing with you. It's a thing called religion, which last time I checked I am allowed to practice in this country without fear of persecution. Sorry you are so annoyed. See Moto44's note, that is what I was talking about ie fact vs theory. Evolution doesn't stand up very well to scientific scrutiny either, for example the lack of transitional forms.

Shakespeare said it best: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinon still."

Combining religion and politics in one thread can only result in people getting their panties in a bunch. The "smart" people lecturing the "dumb" people on how they are so blind to the obvious.

[evomind]

Originally Posted by TimMullen

Not really. It means that a large enough group of like minded people got together and attempted to make their voice heard. Instead of individual voices shouting, there is one loud voice.

NRA advocating hunting, and PETA advocating the banning of all hunting. Do we only want to allow one side? It it good and proper if it's something we agree with, and the evil "special interests" if we don't like it?

Everyone is part of some special interests group.

Most people complain about the "oil company special interests" - well that isn't just a few, and it's not the needs of the few outweighing those of the many, it's the needs of the many (millions of people that are directly or indirectly invested in oil company stocks) voicing their opinion. Many don't even know it, but would be very unhappy if their stock fund suddenly went broke - and that's just an example.

Even a state lobbying for more federal funds to improve the local highways, or build new schools are "special interest" groups.

The point was, that considering "special interests" as "evil" may make for good sound bites, but it isn't reality, as special interest groups are all of us.

That just shows that you need to pay your dues to the "English Only" lobbying group so that your dislike for you tax dollars schooling kids in they native tongue can be expressed to your elected representatives more forcefully than you sending an email by yourself...

But you are right, it is what it is...

yes i see your point, but i believe my point still stands in that it seems politicians bend over backwards for what i define as special interest groups. groups that want something that may or may not be what the majority of americans want/need etc. thats all. at this point i didnt attach a negative conoctation to it.
groups like nra and the others u mention are still special interest groups. (as u pointed out) they are that because the MAJORITY of americans dont seem to care one way or another. or at least not strong enough that they wanna base a presidential campaign on it. im still not attaching a negative conoctation to it. not sure why u seemed to take offense....
anyway....
the "english only" lobbying group is made up primarily of middle class white people. for some reason politicians dont seem to bend over backwards for us. plus i have no time for rallying and such endeavors. i have to work in the morning.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Eye Candy

I also missed the day the newspapers pronounced it is a fact (not theory) that we are derived from monkeys. Who is saying the human race is only 300 years old? Makes me wonder what else in life I am missing.

A theory is not a fact. Otherwise we would call it the Fact of Evolution. Maybe you already are doing that, and that is just ok with me. Believe what you want to believe, but you haven't convinced me, sorry.

Watch some of these and you will be enlightened on what intelligent design really is.

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=intelligent%20design%20%20cou rt&search=Search&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&spell=1




...

[Eye Candy]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Watch some of these and you will be enlightened on what intelligent design really is.

http://www.youtube.com/results?searc...snum=0&spell=1




...

Sorry, I don't come to Lotus Talk to be enlightened on intelligent design. Just try to be fair and balanced when the haters get on their soapbox.

[TimMullen]

Originally Posted by evomind

the "english only" lobbying group is made up primarily of middle class white people. for some reason politicians don't seem to bend over backwards for us. plus i have no time for rallying and such endeavors. i have to work in the morning.

Me too. And so do most people. That's why they join the special interests groups. The politicians don't pay attention to the middle class white people - until they join forces and become a "special interest group". The the media either touts their importance, or dismisses them as an "evil" special interest group.

I don't take offense, but in general, people say "special interest groups" like it's a bad thing. It isn't. But it's a tag that gets put on organizations that people are trying to discredit.

For instance, you indicated that you feel that the majority of people don't care one way or the other about gun laws. But many people refer to the NRA as a "special interest group" as if it is a bad thing, while at the same time they never refer to the Brady anti-gun organization as a special interest group. Yet, the same majority of the people don't car one way or the other about gun laws. NRA = "evil" special interest group. Brady campaign = good.

My only point was that everyone is part of some special interest group of some kind or another. "Special interest group" is neither good or bad, it just is.

[Praksis]

Originally Posted by Eye Candy

Sorry, still not agreeing with you. It's a thing called religion, which last time I checked I am allowed to practice in this country without fear of persecution. Sorry you are so annoyed. See Moto44's note, that is what I was talking about ie fact vs theory. Evolution doesn't stand up very well to scientific scrutiny either, for example the lack of transitional forms.

Shakespeare said it best: "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinon still."

Combining religion and politics in one thread can only result in one result. The "smart" people lecturing the "dumb" people on how they are so blind to the obvious.

What the does religion have to do with it? I thought we were talking about a scientific theory (sorry, came into this late so if it actually started as a religious question, my appologies). If you believe evolution to be wrong because of religion (and only because of religion), then the discussion should end as I don't share your faith so we wouldn't be discussing based on the same assumptions. It would foolish of me to think I could argue against faith, I admire it but don't share it.

If there is a scientific alternative to evolution that's been presented then please share. I've never heard of or seen anything that can, so lacking anything better we go with what we can test against. Yes the theory of evolution still has some questions in it, but that would be comparable to gravity...we don't know what causes gravity, but that detail doesn't mean we should toss the entire theory. Keep exploring that question and when we have an answer incorporate it into the theory. If it really does breaks the theory, re-evaluate all the evidence and see what fits. The questions in evolution, while important, don't invalidate the entire theory because we don't know the specific details yet. When we do, maybe we will find evidence that something's been tweaking with us in a directed maner (I doubt this, though anything is possible) but until that evidence is found we go by what has been observed and can be tested for.

[Eye Candy]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...match-game.htm

Here is another match game. I came up with #1 Obama, #2 Guiliani.

So, I am now campaigning for Obama for President with Guiliani as his running mate.

[evomind]

Originally Posted by TimMullen

Me too. And so do most people. That's why they join the special interests groups. The politicians don't pay attention to the middle class white people - until they join forces and become a "special interest group". The the media either touts their importance, or dismisses them as an "evil" special interest group.

I don't take offense, but in general, people say "special interest groups" like it's a bad thing. It isn't. But it's a tag that gets put on organizations that people are trying to discredit.

For instance, you indicated that you feel that the majority of people don't care one way or the other about gun laws. But many people refer to the NRA as a "special interest group" as if it is a bad thing, while at the same time they never refer to the Brady anti-gun organization as a special interest group. Yet, the same majority of the people don't car one way or the other about gun laws. NRA = "evil" special interest group. Brady campaign = good.

My only point was that everyone is part of some special interest group of some kind or another. "Special interest group" is neither good or bad, it just is.

good or bad really comes down to perspective, methinks.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Eye Candy

Evolution doesn't stand up very well to scientific scrutiny either, for example the lack of transitional forms.

Actually there is a lot of evidence of transitional forms out there. Some of evidence is in those video's. If you believe in blind faith then so be it, but I've heard both sides of the story and Science most definitely wins. The church has held up science threw out history for it's blind faith beliefs and control over people. Had they not done this I could possibly be living star trek and not watching it on tv.

[Praksis]

Originally Posted by Eye Candy

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...match-game.htm

Here is another match game. I came up with #1 Obama, #2 Guiliani.

So, I am now campaigning for Obama for President with Guiliani as his running mate.

I'd actually love a pairing of Dem/Rep or Rep/Dem. Take 2 moderates from both sides that can work with each other to make an honest effort to actually break out of the party divide. I have no expectation to ever see this, but I think it would be very nice.

[LARRY]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck

+1 for Larry

+1 for America.

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by Praksis

I'd actually love a pairing of Dem/Rep or Rep/Dem. Take 2 moderates from both sides that can work with each other to make an honest effort to actually break out of the party divide. I have no expectation to ever see this, but I think it would be very nice.

I second that opinion...

[slaughtr]

Originally Posted by Eye Candy

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...match-game.htm

Here is another match game. I came up with #1 Obama, #2 Guiliani.

So, I am now campaigning for Obama for President with Guiliani as his running mate.

Wow, what a flawed/biased poll. I answered with typical conservative Republican answers and was told to vote #1 Obama, #2 Dodd and #3 Hillary.

[Eye Candy]

Originally Posted by Praksis

What the does religion have to do with it? I thought we were talking about a scientific theory (sorry, came into this late so if it actually started as a religious question, my appologies). If you believe evolution to be wrong because of religion (and only because of religion), then the discussion should end as I don't share your faith so we wouldn't be discussing based on the same assumptions. It would foolish of me to think I could argue against faith, I admire it but don't share it.

If there is a scientific alternative to evolution that's been presented then please share. I've never heard of or seen anything that can, so lacking anything better we go with what we can test against. Yes the theory of evolution still has some questions in it, but that would be comparable to gravity...we don't know what causes gravity, but that detail doesn't mean we should toss the entire theory. Keep exploring that question and when we have an answer incorporate it into the theory. If it really does breaks the theory, re-evaluate all the evidence and see what fits. The questions in evolution, while important, don't invalidate the entire theory because we don't know the specific details yet. When we do, maybe we will find evidence that something's been tweaking with us in a directed maner (I doubt this, though anything is possible) but until that evidence is found we go by what has been observed and can be tested for.

I believe that I have made it quite clear that I do not believe evolution can be proven or disproven, and when I look around at the world it makes more sense for me as a personal decision to believe in a God that created us. But then, I don't like monkeys. Evolution is your religion, Creation is mine. Let's call it a day.
Have you been to the Museum of Natural History? A bunch of plastic models and conjecture, not fact. Pathetic looking.
This is not a good venue to discuss creationism 'science' anyway. However, from a scientific point of view, the world in general runs toward entropy. As this thread is now running.

For the record, I am not asking that the world declare a change in nomenclature for the Theory of Evolution.

How 'bout that Hillary? She sure did better than everyone thought in NH, the pollsters are having a hard time getting their numbers straight.

[Ian]

Originally Posted by Eye Candy

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politic...match-game.htm

Here is another match game. I came up with #1 Obama, #2 Guiliani.

So, I am now campaigning for Obama for President with Guiliani as his running mate.

That's a really neat website; thanks for the link. I got Huckabee, which I didn't necessarily expect. It's great how you can weigh how important each issue is to you at the end.

[ivan1]

Originally Posted by slaughtr

Wow, what a flawed/biased poll. I answered with typical conservative Republican answers and was told to vote #1 Obama, #2 Dodd and #3 Hillary.

makes you wonder doesnt it?

[Eye Candy]

Originally Posted by slaughtr

Wow, what a flawed/biased poll. I answered with typical conservative Republican answers and was told to vote #1 Obama, #2 Dodd and #3 Hillary.

Hmmm, might be those Obama girls at work again.