Is Hilary finished?

[powerbookguy]

Originally Posted by Brian 111

Might as well heap the 911 conspiracy on there as well...

sure why not, the evidence is fairly compelling.

anyone in 2008 will be a huge improvement!

[Brian 111]

Originally Posted by powerbookguy

sure why not, the evidence is fairly compelling.

Having experience with thermite/thermate, I tend to agree

[ivan1]

Originally Posted by JWA

The pic Fox News chose to use for their front page graphic is pretty funny:

All I could think about when I saw that Hillary pic was this movie:

[darkSol]

That's awesome!

[Timmah]

I wonder if Hillary is being propped up by the right to weaken Obama? I think we all can agree that She is very polarizing. I personally don't like her as a candidate but could the Republicans vote in this? I know there are some primaries that are considered "open" to all registered voters.

[ivan1]

independents could vote

[ivan1]

They replaced the pics...this one of McCain is just crying out for captions...

When asked about Fred Thompson's poor performance, Senator McCain commented "He may have lost badly, but I wouldnt mind getting my hands on his wife"

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by LARRY

Who are you Republicans voting for and why?
Put your money where your mouth is.

I just know I will be voting Republican.
I work for the govt. on the military side of the house and I like being employed. They will also have to be pro-gun.

[MickOpalak]

Originally Posted by Eye Candy

Strange times. We need to get off our lazy butts and end our dependence on foreign oil.

Amen to that! Do a little research on what Denmark has done since the OPEC oil embargo of 1971. They were 99% dependent on foreign oil then and now are completely energy independent. In fact, they sell their surplus energy to the rest of Europe to boot!


Back to the original topic: Does anyone know of a good website that charts where all of the candidates stand on the various issues?

[Ian]

Based on that pic in post 167, did Joe Biden actually get 0% of the votes? At what point do you throw in the towel?

[Dragon]

Originally Posted by evomind

im no scientist, nor do i pretend to be one, but i don't think evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt has it?
have they found the missing link, or has that been explained away?

Actually it has been proven. Now that they have mapped human DNA and that of many other animals. In fact one of the main points of the god created us and the human race is only 300 years old group was that human DNA only has 23 chromosomes and monkeys have 24. They have now scientifically proven that the #23 and #24 chromosomes in monkey DNA bonded together in to one. Hence only 23 in humans.

Originally Posted by Eye Candy

I missed the day in science class where it was proclaimed a theory is the same thing as a fact.

Gravity is a theory, hence Gravitational Theory. Are you going to jump off any tall buildings in the near future? Then there is Atomic Theory, Those freaken bombs sure did work and so do those power plants. A Theory is a scientific fact based on multitudes of research and study with data that backs it up and no data that conflicts.

[Tuz]

As an outside observer I find the whole selection procedure of presidential candidates and then election of the president fascinating, albiet rather confusing.

However, as the United States is still on the whole a god-fearing conservative nation I do not think (again, as a nation) it is ready to elect either a woman or a black man as president (even though Hollywood has done both previously). Before you close ranks and raise your defenses, I also do not think that the UK is ready to accept a black Prime Minister.

One more point, you should realise that the rest of the world do not know who the republican candidates are - based upon the UK news coverage the ratio of news-worthy items is about 98:2 in favour of the democratic candidates and soley based upon the fact that it is between a woman and a black man.

[fishguy]

Originally Posted by Tuz

One more point, you should realise that the rest of the world do not know who the republican candidates are - based upon the UK news coverage the ratio of news-worthy items is about 98:2 in favour of the democratic candidates and soley based upon the fact that it is between a woman and a black man.

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 think most people are much more content to just be told how they should think rather than to actually think for themselves.

I also loved the statement earlier in this thread about those who shout the loudest about their political views are also the ones who cannot back up their opinions with any sound argument, just a bunch of name calling.
Larry, are you out there?

[Flash G]

Originally Posted by Ian

Based on that pic in post 167, did Joe Biden actually get 0% of the votes? At what point do you throw in the towel?

Biden dropped out a few days ago.



.

[Flash G]

Originally Posted by Brian 111

Might as well heap the 911 conspiracy on there as well...

Yeah right. The 911 theory is garbage. The war debacle is fact.




.

[Eye Candy]

Originally Posted by Dragon

Actually it has been proven. Now that they have mapped human DNA and that of many other animals. In fact one of the main points of the god created us and the human race is only 300 years old group was that human DNA only has 23 chromosomes and monkeys have 24. They have now scientifically proven that the #23 and #24 chromosomes in monkey DNA bonded together in to one. Hence only 23 in humans.



Gravity is a theory, hence Gravitational Theory. Are you going to jump off any tall buildings in the near future? Then there is Atomic Theory, Those freaken bombs sure did work and so do those power plants. A Theory is a scientific fact based on multitudes of research and study with data that backs it up and no data that conflicts.

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.

[Eye Candy]

Originally Posted by MickOpalak

Amen to that! Do a little research on what Denmark has done since the OPEC oil embargo of 1971. They were 99% dependent on foreign oil then and now are completely energy independent. In fact, they sell their surplus energy to the rest of Europe to boot!


Back to the original topic: Does anyone know of a good website that charts where all of the candidates stand on the various issues?

Last night on tv there was a piece on this. There is a website, Candidates.com or something similar where you can look at all the issues and vote for, against, or "I haven't a freaking clue". Then, the computer matches you up with the candidate that is most in tune with your beliefs. About 80% of the time this candidate is not the same person as you originally said you were voting for. The American electorate is pretty underinformed. Big surprise there.

[Praksis]

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.

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.

[Exigent]

Originally Posted by Eye Candy

Last night on tv there was a piece on this. There is a website, Candidates.com or something similar where you can look at all the issues and vote for, against, or "I haven't a freaking clue". Then, the computer matches you up with the candidate that is most in tune with your beliefs. About 80% of the time this candidate is not the same person as you originally said you were voting for. The American electorate is pretty underinformed. Big surprise there.

Try this:

http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html

These were my results:

Your Results: Email Your Results (See link below this list)

1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100%)
2. Duncan Hunter (73%) Information link
3. Stephen Colbert (campaign halted) (65%) Information link
4. Tom Tancredo (withdrawn, endorsed Romney) (62%) Information link
5. John McCain (60%) Information link
6. Alan Keyes (59%) Information link
7. Chuck Hagel (not running) (59%) Information link
8. Sam Brownback (withdrawn, endorsed McCain) (58%) Information link
9. Mitt Romney (55%) Information link
10. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (53%) Information link
11. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn, endorsed Giuliani) (53%) Information link
12. Fred Thompson (50%) Information link
13. Mike Huckabee (50%) Information link
14. Al Gore (not announced) (49%) Information link
15. Hillary Clinton (49%) Information link
16. Joseph Biden (withdrawn) (49%) Information link
17. Newt Gingrich (says he will not run) (48%) Information link
18. Rudolph Giuliani (48%) Information link
19. John Edwards (47%) Information link
20. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (45%) Information link
21. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (42%) Information link
22. Ron Paul (37%) Information link
23. Bill Richardson (37%) Information link
24. Christopher Dodd (withdrawn) (36%) Information link
25. Barack Obama (35%) Information link
26. Dennis Kucinich (34%) Information link
27. Mike Gravel (33%) Information link
28. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (30%) Information link
29. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (21%) Information link
30. Elaine Brown (19%) Information link

[Moto44]

Hopefully this will clear up the "theory" discussion. Science defines "theory" differently than the way we use it in common vernacular. Here's Wiki's definition:

"In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations, and is predictive, logical, and testable. As such, scientific theories are essentially the equivalent of what everyday speech refers to as facts. In principle, scientific theories are always tentative, and subject to corrections or inclusion in a yet wider theory."